Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

one hand, and, on the other, points in Texas and Arkansas within 150 miles of Shreveport, (6) between Colfax, La., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Texas and Arkansas within 150 miles of Colfax, and (c) between El Dorado, Ark., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Louisiana and Texas within 150 miles of El Dorado, (4) of lumber between Shreveport, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Texas and Arkansas, within 150 miles of Shreveport, and (5) of household goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 17 M. C. C. 467, between points in Louisiana, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas, over irregular routes in each instance, and denied the application in all other respects.

Upon petition of applicant, by order of June 6, 1944, we reopened the proceeding for reconsideration on the record as made, and vacated and set aside the order of February 7, 1944. In such petition, applicant contends it is entitled to additional authority with respect to (2) and (3) (a) as described above. It claims the evidence submitted warrants "grandfather” authority to transport compressed gases, in containers, empty gas containers, welding rods, and welding supplies, and roofing and roofing materials between Shreveport, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Texas and Arkansas within 250 miles of Shreveport instead of 150 miles as found by division 5. Rail carrier protestants and a motor-carrier protestant replied to applicant's petition and object to the granting of any additional authority.

The facts generally concerning applicant's operations are set forth in the prior reports and will not be repeated here, except to the extent necessary to an understanding of the issues involved. The authority granted by division 5, other than that questioned by applicant on petition with respect to (2) and (3) (a) as above described is apparently satisfactory. The findings with respect thereto are affirmed. Our discussion herein will be limited to the issues raised by applicant on petition.

Compressed gases, in containers, empty gas containers, welding rods and welding supplies.-Applicant was granted authority by division 5 in the prior report on reconsideration to continue the transportation of these commodities between Shreveport and points in Texas and Arkansas within 150 miles thereof. It now contends that it is entitled to authority to transport these commodities between Shreveport and points in Texas and Arkansas within 250 miles thereof. The documentary evidence shows that between January 1, 1934, and June 1, 1935, numerous shipments of the above-described commodities were transported by applicant between Shreveport and points in Texas, including Longview, Marshall, Texarkana, Neches, and Henderson, and points in Arkansas, including Camden, Smackover, and El Dorado. Such service has been continuous since June 1, 1935. In addition to the above-named points, which are within 150 miles of Shreveport, Beaumont, and Port Arthur, Tex., also were served prior to June 1, 1935, from Shreveport.

A shipper at Shreveport of the above-described commodities has employed applicant's service since 1930 in the transportation of such commodities, principally from Shreveport to applicant's warehouse at Longview. In addition it has used applicant's service to transport these commodities from Shreveport to Longview, Beaumont, and Port Arthur, Tex., and Camden, Little Rock, and El Dorado, Ark. Although the shipments to Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Little Rock have been somewhat infrequent, nevertheless, they have been continuous in the sense that applicant has transported shipments of the indicated commodities whenever the shipper requested it to such points. Applicant's president also named Longview, Kilgore, Gladewater, Tyler, Arp, and Joinerville, Tex., as points to which shipments were transported from Shreveport. All of the above-named destinations are within 150 miles of Shreveport, except Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Little Rock, which are approximately 170, 175, and 185 miles, respectively, from Shreveport.

Applicant did not keep complete records prior to June 1, 1935, and the documentary evidence presented is representative only of its operations prior thereto. Applicant continuously since prior to June 1, 1935, held itself out to transport the described commodities between Shreveport and points in Texas and Arkansas within 250 miles thereof. This is an irregular-route specialized service for the transportation of specific commodities for which there is sometimes an infrequent demand and in which the destination points are constantly subject to change. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the documentary evidence, when considered in connection with applicant's holding out and the uncontradicted oral testimony, is sufficient to establish "grandfather” rights for the transportation of compressed gases, in containers, empty gas containers, welding rods, and welding supplies between Shreveport, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Arkansas and Texas within 250 miles of Shreveport.

Roofing and roofing materals.-Applicant was granted authority by division 5 in the prior report on reconsideration to continue the transportation of these commodities between Shreveport and points in Texas and Arkansas within 150 miles thereof. As already stated, it contends that it is entitled to authority to transport these commodities between Shreveport and points in Texas and Arkansas within 250 miles thereof. The documentary evidence shows that between January 1, 1934 and June 1, 1935, it transported roofing and roofing materials from Shreveport as follows: One shipment each to Carthage, 43 M. C. C.

[graphic]

Timpson, Gary, and Overton, Tex., and Smackover, Gurdon, Texarkana, and Bradley, Ark., and two shipments to Lufkin, Tex. All of these destination points are within 150 miles of Shreveport.

Since June 1, 1935, numerous shipments of roofing and roofing materials have been transported by applicant between Shreveport and points in Texas and Arkansas within 150 miles thereof, and in addition, to or from Kaufman, Dallas, Farrar, Beaumont, Houston, Sour Lake, and Ennis, Tex., and Pine Bluff, McGehee, and Dermott, Ark. All of the above last-named points are more than 150 miles from Shreveport.

A shipper of roofing and roofing materials at Shreveport has employed applicant's service since 1931 from El Dorado to Shreveport, averaging one load every 6 weeks, and from Shreveport to unnamed job sites in Texas and Arkansas.

As stated, applicant did not keep complete records prior to June 1, 1935, and the documentary evidence is merely representative of its operations prior thereto. It has continuously since prior to June 1, 1935, held itself out to transport roofing and roofing materials between Shreveport and points in Texas and Arkansas within 250 miles thereof, and its president stated that it had actually so operated since prior to June 1, 1935, although he was unable to name specified points. Again the service involved is an irregular-route specialized service for specific commodities wherein the demand is sometimes infrequent, depending on construction sites which are constantly subject to change. We are of the opinion that the record when considered as a whole is sufficient to support a grant of “grandfather” authority for the transportation of roofing and roofing materials between Shreveport, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Texas and Arkansas within 250 miles thereof.

Finding8.—Upon reconsideration we find that on and continuously since June 1, 1935, applicant has been engaged in bona fide operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, (1) of oil-field machinery, material, equipment, and supplies between Shreveport, La., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Texas and Arkansas within 150 miles of Shreveport, (2) of compressed gases, in containers, empty gas containers, welding rods, and welding supplies, between Shreveport, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Texas and Arkansas within 250 miles of Shreveport, (3) of roofing and roofing materials, (a) between Shreveport, on the one hand, and on the other, points in Texas and Arkansas within 250 miles of Shreveport, (6) between Colfax, La., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Texas and Arkansas within 150 miles of Colfax, and (c) between El Dorado, Ark., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Louisiana and Texas within 150 miles of El Dorado, (4) of lumber between Shreveport, on the one hand, and on the other, points in Texas and Arkansas within 150 miles of Shreveport, and (5) of household goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 17 M. C. C. 467, between points in Louisiana, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas, that by reason of such operations applicant is entitled to a certificate authorizing continuance thereof; and that in all other respects the application should be denied.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215 and 217 of the act and with our rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate certificate will be issued. An appropriate order will be entered.

CHAIRMAN PATTERSON and COMMISSIONERS MILLER, ROGERS, and AuDREDGE dissent 43 M. C. C.

No. MC-C-365 DIXIE FREIGHT LINES, INC., v. GEORGE STRANGE

FREIGHT LINES, INC.

Submitted December 15, 1943. Decided July 3, 1944

Divisions accorded complainant out of joint motor common carrier rates on prop

erty originating at points north and east of Atlanta, Ga., and destined to points on defendant's lines in Alabama found unjust, unreasonable, and inequitable. Basis for just, reasonable, and equitable divisions prescribed for future, C. E. Walker for complainant.

J. S. Hinton and Sid B. Jones for interveners in support of complainant. Maurice F. Bishop for defendant.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS MILLER, ROGERS, AND PATTERSON
BY DIVISION 3:

No exceptions were filed to the order recommended by the examiner, but we stayed its effectiveness. Our conclusions differ from those recommended.

By complaint filed February 23, 1943, Dixie Freight Lines, Inc., alleges that the divisions of joint motor common carrier rates between it and defendant, George Strange Freight Lines., Inc., are unjust, unreasonable, and inequitable, in violation of section 216 (c) of the Interstate Commerce Act, and that defendant operates in violation of section 204 of the act. Complainant asks that we prescribe just, reasonable, and equitable divisions for the future and require defendant to cease and desist from the alleged violations of section 204. The violations of section 204 are obscurely alleged, no evidence in respect thereof was adduced, and they will not be further considered. Miller Motor Express and Malone Freight Lines, Inc., intervened at the hearing, in support of complainant.

Complainant is a motor common carrier of general commodities operating over regular routes between Birmingham, Ala., and Atlanta, Ga., and between Atlanta and Montgomery, Ala. Similar operations are conducted by defendant between Birmingham and Mobile, Ala., over routes through Montgomery. Defendant is a successor to Motor

« PreviousContinue »