all of his "accounts" in lump sums in lieu of separate billing by the carriers, and the inspection and other services rendered in connection with adjustment of loss and damage claims are cited as benefits to both shipper and carrier. It is observed in this connection, however, that the practice followed in payment of the freight charges has not been adopted by all of the carriers with whom arrangements are in effect, and that the occasions on which assistance is given in the adjustment of a claim are infrequent. Comment may also be made that delegation to applicant of the right to make inspection of damage to shipments on behalf of the carrier may be of doubtful propriety.

It is clear that applicant renders services of consequence to each of the shippers supporting the application. His operations, in fact, seem to meet the principal needs of the shippers so far as routing of traffic, verification of rates, payment of freight charges, and adjustment of claims are concerned. The performance of substantial services of this character clearly exceed the duties of the carriers providing the actual transportation.

Manifestly, applicant is entitled to compensation for his services to the shippers who characterize the services as very satisfactory and very valuable. The record does not establish that the consideration on the part of the shipper is in the form of permission to control the routing of the traffic involved. The circumstances as a whole, however, are such that any other conclusion does not appear to be justified. Applicant's service includes the furnishing of blank bills of lading to the shippers for use in tender of their traffic to the carriers. These blank bill of lading forms bear the instruction to the carrier to "Please send freight bills to our trans. broker, Henry J. Friedman, 5630 Woodbine Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa." Four of the carriers, with whom arrangements are maintained, observe such instruction and accept payment of their charges through applicant with a deduction by applicant of 10 percent for brokerage fees.

We are of the view that the additional evidence submitted on further hearing does not warrant the conclusion that applicant performs any consequential service for the carriers other than solicitation. There is no legal obstacle to a broker's collecting reasonable compensation for his services from the carriers receiving shipments from him, provided such services redound to the benefit of the carrier or are actually part of the transportation service covered by the carrier's rates. Copes Broker Application, 27 M. C. C. 153. In addition, however, if it is apparent that an applicant renders important services which are beneficial only to shippers and which are no part of the transportation undertaken by the carriers, any acceptable plan of operation must contemplate the payment by the shippers of reasonable compensation therefor. To permit a broker, while collecting from a carrier no

more than the reasonable value of services rendered to it, at the same time gratuitously to render valuable services to shippers, would contribute to undesirable control of traffic by the broker, making the carrier dependent upon him and defeating the freedom of negotiations between them. Bell Broker Application, 31 M. C. C. 795.

On further hearing we find that applicant has failed to show that his operation in the manner described as a broker of transportation by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, is consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy, and, accordingly, that the application should be denied.

An appropriate order will be entered.

43 M. C. C.

No. MC-51006 (SUB-No. 1)

SHAWMUT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., COMMC
CARRIER APPLICATION

Decided October 27, 1943

On reconsideration, findings in prior report herein, 34 M. C. C. 569, rever interruption of service between May 12 and July 18, 1939, found to be applicant's control. Applicant found entitled to continue a service at ter, Mass., as an intermediate point in connection with its present route operations, by reason of service at that point on and since the st date. Issuance of an appropriate certificate approved upon compli applicant with certain conditions, and application in all other denied.

Appearances as shown in prior report.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS MAHAFFIE, ROGERS, AND PATTER BY DIVISION 5:

The title proceeding and No. MC-51006, Shawmut Transpor Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, were considered and di of together in a prior report, 34 M. C. C. 569. We there grant plicant in No. MC-51006, Shawmut Transportation Co., Inc., after called Shawmut, a certificate by virtue of its own operati and since the statutory date, under the "grandfather" clause of s 206 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, authorizing operati interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor v of general commodities, with exceptions, between New York Ci the one hand, and Boston and New Bedford, Mass., on the other regular routes, with service at intermediate and off-route poi described in appendix A hereto. In the instant proceeding, No 51006 (Sub-No. 1), we denied "grandfather" rights to Shawmu successor in interest, based upon operations conducted by it a predecessor, Topsfield Express Company, Inc., Hyman Copin ceiver, of Somerville, Mass., hereinafter called Topsfield, and e an order denying the application. The denial was based on a fi that an interruption in service from May 12, 1939, when Sha

1 Substitution of Shawmut Transportation Co., Inc., as applicant in lieu of T Express Company, Inc., Hyman Copins, receiver, of Somerville, Mass., in No. MO was approved on November 15, 1939, in No. MC-FC-921. No. MC-51006 (Sub-No. assigned to the operating rights thus acquired.

purchased Topsfield's operations from the receiver, until July 18, 1939, at which time Shawmut obtained authority from the Commission to conduct the considered operation, was one not beyond the control of applicant.

In Shawmut Transp. Co., Inc., v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 49 Fed. Supp. 831, the District Court of United States for the District of Massachusetts held that we erred in finding that the above-described interruption in service was one over which applicant had control. The court entered a decree enjoining and setting aside our order of August 7, 1942, insofar as it denied applicant a certificate authorizing operation to and from Philadelphia, and environs. The case was remanded "to the end that the Commission may decide as a question of fact whether Topsfield's past operations have been of a nature such as to warrant the issuance to Shawmut, as Topsfield's substitute, of a certificate under the "grandfather" clause authorizing operations beyond Newark to Philadelphia." Thereafter the proceeding in No. MC51006 (Sub-No. 1) was reopened by the Commission on its own motion for reconsideration on the record as made and referred to us for consideration and disposition, and the denial order was vacated and set aside.

No appeal has been taken by the Commission from the decision of the court. In the light of the above, we find that the interruption of service between May 12 and July 18, 1939, was one beyond the control of applicant and its predecessor. The salient facts concerning the considered operation have been fully set forth in the prior report and need only be reiterated here to the extent necessary to dispose of the issues. While, as above indicated, the court remanded the case for sole consideration of the nature of Topsfield's past operations beyond Newark to Philadelphia, the Commission's reopening order was not so qualified. We shall, therefore, give consideration to all evidence of record.

The regular-route operations conducted by Topsfield on the statutory date between New York City and Boston are almost identical with those which Shawmut already has been authorized to conduct by virtue of its own operations on and since the statutory date. Duplicating operating rights will not be granted. Therefore, remaining issues concern applicant's claims to "grandfather" rights based on (1) Topsfield's operations and its own between New York City and Philadelphia, over two regular routes, with service at intermediate and off-route points, as described in appendix B to the extent applicable; and (2) any other operations and services performed by Topsfield and Shawmut successively on and since the statutory date which may not be embraced in the authority now outstanding in Shawmut's name. These matters will hereinafter be separately discussed.

Sometime after June 6, 1940, the receiver, pursuant to leave granted by order of the bankruptcy court on that date, destroyed practically all of Topsfields's books and records. The sole documentary evidence remaining comprises the following: (1) Tabulated shipments for the period June 6, 1934 to June 3, 1936, filed with the application, (2) tabulated shipments for the period July 13 to December 30, 1938, based on manifests made available at the hearing for protestants' inspection, and (3) abstracts of shipments for the period July 18, 1939 to June 17, 1941. based on Shawmut's bills of lading also available at the hearing for protestants' inspection. The tabulated shipments covering the first period, which were made a part of the record, were based on original shipping papers heretofore examined by one of the supervisors of the Bureau of Motor Carriers in connection with informal proceedings, but since destroyed by the receiver. In the circumstances, consideration will be given to the tabulated shipments covering the first as well as the other two periods.

Philadelphia operations.-Applicant claims 2 routes, 1 in each direction between New York City and Philadelphia, with service at all intermediate and at certain off-route points more specifically described in appendix B. The documentary evidence discloses that operations over these routes to and from Philadelphia were rather limited and infrequent. The commodities transported need not be set forth in view of the conclusions reached herein. Prior to the statutory date, 10 shipments are shown south-bound to Philadelphia, namely, 5 from Boston, Mass., 2 from Peabody, Mass., and one each from Lowell, Chelsea, and Malden, Mass. Eleven shipments are shown north-bound from Philadelphia, 9 of which are destined to Boston and 2 to Everett, Mass. A single shipment is shown from Chester, Pa., to Boston. The documentary evidence discloses no shipments whatsoever to or from Philadelphia between June 1, 1935, and July 18, 1939, at which time Shawmut assumed the operation. Eleven shipments are shown between Philadelphia and Boston during 1939 for the period subsequent to July 18 of that year. No shipments whatsoever are shown northbound from Philadelphia during 1940, and only 8 shipments are disclosed south-bound for that year to Philadelphia, all from Boston. During 1941, a dozen shipments are shown between Philadelphia and Boston and a few scattered shipments are shown north-bound from Philadelphia to points near Boston and to Providence, R. I. No substantial service has been shown at any intermediate or off-route points in connection with the above routes beyond the scope of the authority which applicant now holds.

Four witnesses testified with reference to the Philadelphia operation. Topsfield never owned or operated a terminal at Philadelphia. There were only occasional shipments to Philadelphia subsequent to