While conceding that its motor-carrier operations fall within the class described in Classification of Motor Carriers of Property, 2 M. C. C. 703, herein termed the Classification case, as a common carrier of general freight in irregular-route radial service, and that such classification does not specifically authorize a radial carrier to transport property between points in the radial area through the base point or points, applicant contends that, on general principles, we should interpret certificates of such carriers as including this right. It asserts that there is nothing in the definition of a radial carrier, or in the act, which requires us to hold that a carrier operating under a certificate of this nature does not have authority to transport shipments from an authorized base point to points in an authorized radial area which were previously transported by such carrier from points in such authorized radial area to such base point, and that it is impractical, unreasonable, and contrary to the public interest, the national transportation policy, and the policy of this Commission, as expressed in decisions involving unifications of both regular- and irregular-route authorities where through service was authorized through a common gateway point, to hold that a carrier such as itself, which is clearly authorized to transport traffic to and from Statesville and Elkin and to interchange such traffic at those points with other carriers, cannot perform directly a service either part of which it can perform as a part of an interline service.

The pertinent portion of the certificate issued to applicant authorizing it to operate as a common carrier of general commodities, with exceptions, over irregular routes, reads as follows:

From Elkin and Statesville, N. C., to points in Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, those in Tennessee on, east, and south of a line and those in New York on and south of a line

From the above-described destination points to points in North Carolina.

It should be observed that operations are authorized (1) from Elkin and Statesville, N. C., to points in the District of Columbia and 11 States, not including North Carolina, and (2) from the District of Columbia and the same 11 States to points in North Carolina. There is no authority, for example, to operate from any point in New York to any point in Georgia. The certificate specifies the service to be performed out-bound from Elkin and Statesville and from points in the District of Columbia and 11 States to Elkin and Statesville and all other points in North Carolina.

Examination of the report of division 5 discloses that the grant was made in accordance with the pattern of applicant's past operations and represents one that will afford substantial parity between past

and future operations in conformity with the purpose of the "grandfather" clause. The authority granted is set forth in clear and unambiguous terms. As stated, applicant, however, would have us read into the certificate authority, for example, to transport a shipment from a New York point to a Georgia point by way of Statesville. It would do so apparently on the theory that since it has authority to operate from a point in New York in in-bound service to Statesville and in out-bound service from Statesville to a point in Georgia, it may, under the two separately stated authorities, interchange with itself, and provide through service.

Applicant's position is untenable. Plainly division 5 did not intend to grant applicant the authority it would have us find is contained in its certificate. The division found that applicant was engaged continuously since prior to the statutory date in transporting shipments from Elkin and Statesville to points in a number of States and, on return trips, it transported such shipments as could be obtained to points in North Carolina. Obviously, this is the operation that division 5 intended to authorize in the certificate granted to applicant. The matter of applicant's claim for broader operating rights is discussed in the division's report at page 612, where, after determining the pattern of applicant's operation during the critical period, continuance of which is authorized in the certificate granted, it disposed of applicant's claim for broader authority by saying:

Taking into consideration the territory involved, we do not believe that this evidence of operation is sufficient to grant applicant the broad authority sought, that is, to operate between any 2 points over irregular routes.

Nor is the interpretation requested warranted by the language of the certificate; rather it would be contrary thereto. Section 208 (a) of the act provides that we shall specify in a certificate "the service to be rendered and in case of operations not over specified routes or between fixed termini, the territory within which, the motor carrier is authorized to operate." "Territory" is not a word of art. The characteristics of the transportation service involved as well as the geographical area served are relevant to the territorial scope of the operations which may be authorized. Alton R. Co. v. United States, 315 U. S. 15. Authority to operate within a specified "territory" may include permission to service all points in that area. On the other hand, it may be restricted to designated points therein or it may extend to all points in a part of that area and to selected localities in another part. The precise delineation of the area or the specification of localities which may be serviced has been entrusted to us by the Congress. United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 315 U. S. 475. The words "to" and "from" in applicant's certificate define the territory in which it may operate. This territory may not

be increased by the expedient of interpreting "to" and "from" a point to mean also through such point. If division 5 had intended to grant applicant that authority, it would have done so with more appropriate language.

Neither are we impressed with applicant's reference to cases dealing with operating rights flowing from unifications of two or more motor common carriers under sections 5 and 212 (b) of the act, as supporting its position. These unifications are not analogous to the situation here. In such cases the test is whether the unification is consistent with the public interest, and the through service generally authorized is one that the carriers involved lawfully may have performed by interchange of traffic at common points of service prior to the unification. In other words, no new operating right is created, but merely a unification of the existing rights of two or more carriers. To agree with applicant's interpretation of its certificate would require us to create a new operating right on the basis of the fiction that it may "interchange" with itself.

In this connection, we are unable to subscribe to the fiction of an interchange with oneself as authorizing an operation not otherwise authorized. Interchange in transportation parlance means an arrangement under which two or more carriers undertake to transport a shipment from origin to destination, the service performed by each carrier being specifically authorized. But the situation here considered is not of this nature. Under the certificate which it now holds, applicant is authorized to conduct only service from and to certain base points. By proper arrangements, it may interchange with other carriers at any point which it is authorized to serve and the same shipment may be both received from and delivered to any other carrier, but its service as to any particular shipment must either begin or end at one of the authorized base points.

The desired interpretation also would be at variance with longestablished precedent. As soon as practicable after the passage of the original Motor Carrier Act, division 5 in the Classification case established a classification of motor carriers of property in which it placed common carriers engaged in performing irregular-route service in two classes, as follows:

(C) Irregular-route radial service.-An irregular-route radial-service carrier is any person who or which undertakes to transport property or any class or classes of property in interstate or foreign commerce by motor vehicle for compensation over irregular routes from a fixed base point or points to points or places located within such radial area as shall have been fixed and authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission in a certificate of public convenience and necessity, or permit, or from any point located within such radial area to such carrier's fixed base point or points.

(D) Irregular-route nonradial service.-An irregular-route nonradial-service carrier is any person who or which undertakes to transport property or any class or classes of property in interstate or foreign commerce by motor vehicle for compensation over irregular routes between points or communities located within such general territory as shall have been defined geographically and authorized in a certificate of public convenience and necessity, or permit, and any other points or communities located within the same general territory without respect to a hub community or a fixed base point of operation. [Italics supplied.]

From the beginning of our regulation of motor carriers, certificates issued to irregular-route radial common carriers have been interpreted informally by our Bureau of Motor Carriers in accordance with the definition of such carriers stated in the Classification case, as not authorizing the transportation of shipments between points in radial territories through points in base territories. The motor-carrier industry has developed and flourished under this interpretation, and it was not questioned in a formal proceeding prior to Jack Cole Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 32 M. C. C. 199. In that case the question was raised for the first time and division 5 disposed of the matter by saying at pages 208 and 209:

As seen, since prior to June 1, 1935, applicant's service has consisted of transporting shipments from the Birmingham area to numerous points in a certain territory, and on return, transporting shipments to the Birmingham area from this same territory, over any and all routes. This is what is commonly called an irregular-route radial service. Since the statutory date, applicant has performed certain service for which operating authority is denied herein. For example, since October 1937, it has transported numerous shipments from Akron to certain points in the Georgia territory as well as in the reverse direction, and from Cincinnati to Montgomery; and, in 1938, it commenced transporting some shipments from Detroit to Atlanta with a stop-off at Birmingham for partial unloading, and from Detroit to Birmingham with a stop-off at Atlanta for par tial unloading. There is some question whether applicant could transport lawfully shipments from Akron to Atlanta, or from Atlanta to Detroit, among other points, as long as it operated through the Birmingham area.

Under the “grandfather" clause of section 206 (a) of the act, we may authorize a carrier to continue to perform only those operations in which it was engaged on June 1, 1935, and which it has continued since that time. To say that applicant could serve any two points in the territory merely by operating through the Birmingham area would, in effect, allow it to do more than it was doing on and continuously since June 1, 1935, namely, rendering a service from or to the Birmingham area. Under section 208 (a) of the act we are directed to specify in a certificate the service to be rendered. In this connection it may be well to point out that "service," when applied to a point or points in connection with motor-carrier operations, contemplates interchange with connecting carriers at such point or place, as well as the delivery of goods to a consignee or the acceptance of goods for transportation from a shipper at such point or place, and such other details as are incident to the delivery or receiving of the goods. Lubbock-El Paso Motor Frt., Inc. Com. Car. Appli

cation, 27 M. C. C. 585, 591.

Further in the Classification case, the Commission, division 5, in defining the various types of carriers, stated: “An irregular-route radial-service carrier * undertakes to transport property

over

or

irregular routes from a fixed base point or points to points or places located within such radial area as shall have been fixed and authorized from any point located within such radial area to such carrier's fixed base point or points." [Italics supplied.]

From the forgoing we think it clear that applicant may not continue lawfully to perform service between any two points in its radial area by using the Birmingham area as a gateway. In specifying the service that applicant may render, we shall, as has been done by us in numerous instances involving an irregular-route radial-service carrier, use the phrases "on the one hand" and "on the other" to differentiate between the base points and points in the radial area.

Federal courts have followed the interpretation of radial authority announced in the Jack Cole case, in National Moving & W. Corp. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 48 Fed. Supp. 284, and Goncz v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 48 Fed. Supp. 296.2

A large number of authorities authorizing radial and nonradial common-carrier operations over irregular routes have been granted in "grandfather" proceedings and in proceedings under section 207 (a) of the act. These authorities have carefully maintained the distinction between radial and nonradial service as specified above. To our knowledge, in no instances has radial authority been granted with the understanding that through service between points in the radial territory via a point in the base territory was permissive or authorized.

Radial or nonradial authority has been granted in all proceedings in accordance with the evidence adduced. In "grandfather" proceedings where the evidence established applicant's operation to be that of a radial carrier, a grant of authority to operate in radial service has been made. Likewise, where the evidence in such proceedings established that the operation was nonradial in character, appropriate nonradial authority has been granted. In proceedings under section 207 (a) of the act, involving extensions of operations or new operations, the same distinction has been maintained. To adopt the

In the Goncz case the court's description of the service which Goncz could perform under the typical irregular-route radial service is as follows:

The plaintiff is thus restricted by the Commission's order to so-called radial operations on irregular routes.* He may transport household goods from any point in his Massachusetts base area to any point in the described territory, and from any point in the described territory back to the Massachusetts base area. Thus for example, he could carry a shipment from Boston to Jacksonville, Florida. On the way back he could pick up a load anywhere he might find one in the territory described-Jacksonville, if he were lucky, or Charleston, South Carolina, or St. Louis, Missouri-provided such load were destined for a point in the Massachusetts base area. [Italics supplied.]

*See Classification of Brokers and Motor Carriers of Property, 2 M. C. C. 703, for definitions of "radial" and "non-radial" operations over irregular routes.