to St. Louis, this traffic having been handled entirely by applicant. Rail carriers have been precluded from using tank cars for transportation from and to those points owing to restrictions upon use of such equipment by the Office of Defense Transportation. It has not been shown that such carriers would lose any substantial tonnage if the proposed change in character of service should take place. In their exceptions, these carriers question principally the adequacy of the record to show a public need for the proposed service.

As seen, applicant now has authority in Nos. MC-102374 and MC-102374 (Sub-No. 1) to operate as a contract carrier of petroleum and petroleum products from and to the identical points for which authority is here sought as a motor common carrier. It is the only motor carrier having permanent authority to provide service from and to these points save for a contract carrier which is authorized to transport similar commodities from Blue Island to points in Missouri. This carrier does not oppose the application. The record leaves no doubt as to a need for applicant's service; the sole issue is whether there is a public need, or, in other words, whether its service is required by public convenience and necessity. The only form of specialization, which in the past has characterized applicant's operation as that of a contract carrier, has been the devotion to a limited number of shippers. It is clear that applicant does not desire to devote its service to the limited number of shippers now served by it, but, on the contrary, intends to make its service available to any shipper desiring its service. Because of the more frequent use of exchange agreements among shippers of petroleum products, applicant has experienced increased demands for its service from other shippers. The supporting shippers have manifested a need for applicant's service as a motor common carrier. In our opinion, the evidence establishes a public need for the proposed service. The granting of a certificate herein will, however, be conditioned upon the surrender for cancelation of the permits issued to applicant in the proceedings heretofore mentioned.

We find that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of petroleum and petroleum products, in bulk, in tank trucks, (1) from Hartford, Ill., to points in Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri, (2) from Blue Island, Ill., and points within 12 miles of Blue Island to points in Indiana, (3) from Lawrenceville, Ill., to St. Louis, Mo., and (4) from East Peoria, Ill., to points in Iowa on and east of U. S. Highway 63 and on and south of U. S. Highway 20, all over irregular routes; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and our rules and regulations thereunder; and that a certificate authorizing such opera

tions should be granted subject to the cancelation upon applicant's request of its permit in No. MC-102374, which embraces No. MC-102374 (Sub-No. 1).

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215 and 217 of the act and our rules and regulations thereunder, and subject to the condition outlined above, an appropriate certificate will be issued.

LEE, Commissioner, concurring in the result:

In my opinion, the real reasons for changing applicant's status from a contract to a common carrier are not stated in the report. In the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, as it was originally enacted, Congress recognized two classes of carriers for hire, common and contract. The distinction between the two was that the common carrier served the public generally on a basis of charges to be set forth in its published tariffs. The contract carrier served only selected persons under individual contracts or agreements. It was required to file only a schedule of minimum charges. In filing their "grandfather" applications motor carriers were free to request the issuance of certificates as common carriers, or permits as contract carriers. Many applicants who were transporting property for a relatively few shippers sought permits. We accorded weight to these requests in the determination of the applications.

A couple of years after the act was passed, division 5 took the drastic step of requiring contract carriers to make and enter into contracts in writing with their shippers, specifying the exact charges to be paid, which had to be the same as their minimum charges, and to file copies of such contracts with us. Contracts of Contract Carriers, 1 M. C. C. 628, Filing of Contracts by Contract Carriers, 2 M. C. C. 55, 41 M. C. C. 527. Congress later so amended section 220 (a) of the act as to validate the requirement that contract carriers should make and file contracts in writing. Division 5 also held that common and contract carriers could not interchange traffic. Holmes Contract Carrier Application, 8 M. C. C. 391.

In view of the foregoing, as well as for other reasons, many carriers, who had been designated as contract carriers, found that they could not operate successfully as such, and a considerable number have come to us and asked for common-carrier authority. We have acceded to their requests in many cases where justified by the evidence presented to us. Possibly we have denied some such requests. but there are none that I can think of at this time. The instant applicant is a transporter of petroleum products, in bulk, in tank trucks. It holds both classes of authority. It serves a few oil companies. Logically and lawfully I think it is a contract carrier insofar as

the transportation here considered is concerned. However, other petroleum haulers, performing the same kind of service, hold commoncarrier authority, and they have evidenced no desire to be made contract carriers. Being both a common and contract carrier of petroleum products, applicant has concluded that, because of the different regulation of the two classes of carriers, it prefers to operate only as a common carrier, and, therefore, it has filed this application. As either a common or contract carrier, applicant holds itself out to serve, and is desirous of serving, the general public to the extent that such general public is engaged in shipping petroleum products, in tank trucks. There are, however, relatively few persons or corporations so engaged. While the test is whether the carrier is holding itself out to serve the general public, I believe applicant is serving the public, as a contract carrier of petroleum products, in tank trucks, to the same extent as are common carriers engaged in transporting the same commodities. There is no doubt in my mind that the present regulation of such common carriers is less irksome than that of such contract carriers, and that applicant can comply with our regulations as a common carrier much easier than it can comply with the regulations governing a contract carrier.

In view of the reasons set forth in the report, and of the foregoing, I concur in the issuance to applicant of common carrier authority.

43 M. C. C.

No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 3)1

T. B. LONGSHORE EXTENSION OF OPERATIONS-SALEMYOUNGSTOWN, OHIO

Submitted December 26, 1942. Decided September 21, 1944

1. On reconsideration in Nos. MC-50404, MC-50404 (Sub-No. 1), and MC-50404 (Sub-No. 2), findings in prior reports, 2 M. C. C. 480, 7 M. C. C. 535, and 13 M. C. C. 805, modified. Operation by Phil's Fast Freight, Inc. (successor in interest to applicant), as a contract carrier by motor vehicle of specified commodities between certain points or territory in Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, over irregular routes, found consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. Issuance of an amended permit approved upon compliance with certain conditions, and applications in all other respects denied.

2. Authority sought in Nos. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 3) and MC-50404 (Sub-No. 4) found embraced within that authorized in other proceedings herein, and applications denied.

C. N. Thompson for applicant in No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 3), Herbert Baker for applicant and Edwin C. Reminger for protestant in No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 4).

In Nos. MC-50404, MC-50404 (Sub-No. 1), and MC-50404 (Sub-No. 2) appearances shown in prior reports.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION 2

DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND PATTERSON

BY DIVISION 5:

This report deals with five related applications. No exceptions were filed to the order recommended by the joint board in the title proceeding, but it was stayed by us. In No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 4), exceptions were filed by protestant to the order recommended by the examiner. For reasons hereinafter disclosed, we are reopening Nos. MC-50404, MC-50404 (Sub-No. 1), and MC-50404 (Sub-No. 2), upon our own motion for reconsideration on the record as made. Our conclusions in Nos. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 3) and MC-50404 (Sub-No. 4) differ from those recommended.

'This report also includes No. MC-50404, T. B. Longshore Contract Carrier Application; No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 1), T. B. Longshore Extension of Operations-Buffalo; No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 2); T. B. Longshore Extension of Operations-Ohio and Kentucky: and No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 4), T. B. Longshore Extension of Operations-Butler.

'On reconsideration in certain of the proceedings embraced herein as explained in the text of the report.

By application in No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 3), filed August 7, 1941, T. B. Longshore 3 of Ironton, Ohio, seeks a permit authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, of steel, steel products, and materials and supplies used in the operation and maintenance of plants producing steel and steel products, hereinafter collectively called steel and steel products, between Salem and Youngstown, Ohio, over U. S. Highway 62. No one opposes this application.

By application in No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 4), filed August 13, 1942, the same applicant seeks a permit authorizing operations, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a contract carrier by motor vehicle of steel and steel products between Middletown, Ohio, and Ashland, Ky., on the one hand, and, on the other, Butler, Pa., and Buffalo, N. Y., over irregular routes. Glenn Cartage Co., a common carrier by motor vehicle, opposes this application.

In order that the matters involved may be understood more readily, a brief summary of the operating authorities previously granted, and of the events which resulted in the instant proceedings, is first desirable.

Pursuant to the findings in Longshore Contract Carrier Application, 2 M. C. C. 480, applicant was issued a permit on November 17, 1937, in No. MC-50404, authorizing operation as a contract carrier by motor vehicle of steel and steel products between Ashland and Cleveland and Middletown, Ohio, as well as certain other Ohio points, Covington, Ky., and Pittsburgh, Pa., over regular routes, with service at all intermediate points. Following the findings in Longshore Extension of Operations-Buffalo, 7 M. C. C. 535, applicant was issued a permit on February 25, 1939, in No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 1), authorizing operation as a contract carrier by motor vehicle of steel and steel products, over regular routes, (a) between Cleveland, Ohio, and Buffalo, with service at the off-route points of Jamestown, Salamanca, and Ellicottville, N. Y., (b) between Ashland and Huntington, W. Va., and (c) between Youngstown, Ohio, and Butler. Pursuant to the findings in Longshore Extension of Operations-Ohio and Kentucky, 13 M. C. C. 805, applicant was issued a permit on July 12, 1939, in No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 2) authorizing operation as a contract carrier by motor vehicle of steei and steel products, over irregular routes, between Middletown, Ashland, and Huntington, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Kentucky, on and east of Kentucky (U. S.) Highway 25, hereinafter called the Kentucky area, and those in Ohio.

The transfer to Phil's Fast Freight, Inc., of Middletown, Ohio, of all operating rights originally issued to T. B. Longshore, as herein described, was authorized on January 22, 1943, in No. MC-FC-17387, and a consolidated permit containing all such authority was issued to Phil's Fast Freight, Inc., on April 12, 1943. An application seeking authority to transfer to Phil's Fast Freight, Inc., any authority that may be issued in the title proceeding or in No. MC-50404 (Sub-No. 4) is pending. The term "applicant" as used herein will refer to T. B. Longshore.