Virginia, over irregular routes. Pursuant to formal proceedings in this matter, 29 M. C. C. 810, division 5 found that public convenience and necessity required operation by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a motor common carrier, of unmanufactured tobacco from the above-described points in Maryland to Richmond, Va., and of empty containers on return, all over irregular routes. In disposing of this application, the division found that no public need had been established for the proposed operation between the described Maryland points and other points in Virginia and those in North Carolina and South Carolina, and accordingly the application in all other respects was denied. Thereafter, on May 14, 1942, a consolidated certificate was issued to applicant in these and other proceedings authorizing it to operate as a motor common carrier, which provides, among other things, as follows: that the transportation service to be performed by the said carrier (applicant) in interstate or foreign commerce shall be as specified below: IRREGULAR ROUTES Unmanufactured tobacco, from points and places in that part of Anne Arundel, Prince Georges, Charles, Saint Marys, and Calvert Counties, Md., on and south of U. S. Highway 50, to Richmond, Va.; and Tobacco leaf, scrap, or stems (in sheets, baskets, hogsheads, tierces, boxes or bales), * between points and places in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. After the consolidated certificate was issued, applicant took the position that it was authorized thereby to transport unmanufactured tobacco in common-carrier service from the specified Maryland points to any point in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, over irregular routes, through Richmond, and filed tariffs covering such service. Informally our Bureau of Motor Carriers has taken the contrary view, and the tariffs were criticized as being beyond the scope of applicant's operating rights. In order to clarify the matter, applicant, by the instant petition, seeks an interpretation of the authority contained in the certificate, and a finding to the effect that it may lawfully perform service from the authorized Maryland points to all points in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, over irregular routes, provided operation is by way of Richmond. In the event we should adhere to the view of the Bureau that applicant may not lawfully perform this service, it seeks reopening and reconsideration of the proceeding to the end that a certificate be granted which specifically authorizes such service. While conceding that the consolidated certificate does not grant unlimited authority to operate over irregular routes from points in the described Maryland territory to points in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, applicant contends that it does grant the right to operate from any point in the described Maryland territory to any point in North Carolina, South Carolina, or Virginia so long as the service is performed over routes through Richmond. It argues that its construction of the certificate is supported by analogy to rights flowing from the unifications of operating authorities under sections 5 and 212 (b) of the act; that we have construed certificates issued to regular-route common carriers in the manner sought, and we are, therefore, required by law to afford like treatment to certificates of irregular-route common carriers, citing Powell Bros. Truck Lines, Inc.-Purchase-Bryan, 39 M. C. C. 11, United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 315 U. S. 475; and that it is unreasonable, arbitrary, and contrary to the public interest to hold that a carrier such as itself, which is authorized to transport interstate shipments of unmanufactured tobacco from certain points in Maryland to Richmond and from Richmond to other points in Virginia and all points in North Carolina and South Carolina, and which may interchange such shipments at Richmond with other carriers, cannot perform directly a service either part of which it can perform as part of an interline movement. Protesting rail carriers contend that the situation presented here is not comparable to that found in cases involving regular-route operations, or in proceedings under sections 5 or 212 (b) of the act. They assert that the division's report in the title case contains no indication that it found any need for the proposed service from Maryland points to points in North Carolina, South Carolina, or Virginia other than Richmond; that the division granted only a limited right to transport unmanufactured tobacco from the described Maryland points to Richmond; and that to hold now that applicant lawfully may transport unmanufactured tobacco from Maryland points to places in Virginia other than Richmond and to places in North Carolina and South Carolina would in effect negative such finding and would enlarge the authority granted without any showing of public convenience and necessity. As previously indicated, the question presented is whether under the consolidated certificate, which embraces operating rights between points in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina acquired under section 206 (a) of the act and operating rights from specified Maryland points to Richmond acquired under section 207 (a) of the act, applicant lawfully may operate from the Maryland points through Richmond to points in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. It is to be noted that neither of applicant's two separately granted operating rights is restricted in any way; that both authorize the transportation of unmanufactured tobacco, and that both authorize service at Richmond. While division 5 found that there was no need shown in the title case for the entire service applicant there sought authority to render, it did not impose any restriction in the authority granted. It is well settled that regulate-route motor common carriers may operate over all combinations of their separately described routes and between all authorized points thereon, unless their service is specifically restricted in some particular. Powell Bros. Truck Lines, Inc.Purchase-Bryan, supra. The same principle has been applied to regular-route common-carrier operations acquired by purchase, merger, or in proceedings under section 207 (a) of the act. Days Transfer, Inc.-Purchase-Haner, 39 M. C. C. 339; Dixie Freight Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 24 M. C. C. 780. And, it has been held generally in motor-carrier proceedings under sections 5 and 212 (b) of the act that where common-carrier regular-route and irregular-route authorities, or two or more common-carrier irregularroute authorities, are unified for operation by one carrier, through service may be provided between authorized points in both of such authorities, unless the public interest requires the imposition of a restrictive condition against the rendition of through service in whole or in part. The only requirement in these instances has been that there must be a point of service common to both operating authorities and the physical operation must be rendered through such common point. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.-Purchase-Edmunds, 36 M. C. C. 259, B. & E. Transp. Co., Inc.-Purchase-Merchants Transp., Inc. 36 M. C. C. 561; and Consolidated Freightways, Inc.Purchase-Pacific 1. Exp., 38 M. C. C. 577. We see no reason for following a different rule in the instant matter. Our conclusion herein, however, should not be understood as applying to factual situations which differ from those considered herein, nor as precluding the imposition by us in certificates of reasonable conditions against the rendition of through service in cases in which such conditions may be warranted by the evidence presented. Such power is specifically granted in section 208 (a) of the act, which authorizes us to impose in certificates such reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations as the public convenience and necessity may from time to time require, including terms, conditions, and limitations as to the extension of the route or routes of the carrier. It may be exercised in proper circumstances. We conclude that under its present consolidated certificate applicant has authority to transport unmanufactured tobacco from the described Maryland points to points in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, over irregular routes, provided the physical operation is conducted through Richmond. In view of this conclusion, applicant's petition, except to the extent it seeks an interpretation of the consolidated certificate, will be denied. An appropriate order will be entered. COMMISSIONER MILLER concurs in the result. CHAIRMAN PATTERSON and COMMISSIONERS LEE and ROGERS dissent. 43 M. C. C. No. MC-C-327 THE FEDERAL GLASS COMPANY v. THE CLEVELAND, COLUMBUS AND CINCINNATI HIGHWAY, INC. Submitted January 2, 1943. Decided August 7, 1944 Rates charged on mixed truckload shipments of glassware and tumblers from Columbus, Ohio, to Detroit, Mich., found inapplicable. Pool-truckload commodity rate on glassware and tumblers from Columbus to Detroit found inapplicable on shipments destined to points outside of Detroit proper. Applicable rates, to the extent subject to a minimum weight in excess of 18,000 pounds prior to April 12, 1939, and 15,000 pounds thereafter, found unreasonable. Complaint dismissed. H. S. McCafferty for complainant. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 2, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, SPLAWN, AND ALLDREDGE BY DIVISION 2: Exceptions were filed by the complainant to the order recommended by the joint board. Our findings differ somewhat from those recommended. By complaint filed January 27, 1942, complainant corporation of Columbus, Ohio, alleges that the charges sought to be collected by the defendant on shipments of glassware from Columbus to Detroit, Mich., and points in Michigan taking the Detroit rates,' are inapplicable, and in violation of section 216 of the Interstate Commerce Act. We are asked to determine the applicable rates and to grant the complainant such other relief as it is entitled to receive. Rates will be stated in amounts per 100 pounds. The complainant manufactures and sells about 80 different varieties of glassware, including various types of cups, saucers, dishes, sherbets, bowls, goblets, and tumblers. Its chief method of distribution is by pool trucks or pool cars. The complainant holds its orders for the various types of glassware from customers in the same general locality until a sufficient volume is accumulated to obtain the benefit 1 Dearborn, Ecorse, Ferndale, Flat Rock, Hamtramck, Highland Park, Lincoln Park, Mound Road-from Detroit corporate limits to Nine Mile Road, River Rouge, Trenton, and Wyandotte. |