preferred industry, or by designating the storage yard of the prejudiced industry as the interchange point and eliminating the charge previously made for handling the traffic thereto. The total movement on plant tracks of the preferred industry ranged from 7,600 to 10,400 feet, and on plant tracks in the prejudiced industry the average movement was 7,600 feet. It was further found, however, that the service which would be rendered the plants under the latter alternative appeared to be greater than contemplated in connection with the line-haul rates fixed in Iron Ore Rate Cases, supra, and that if this method of removing the prejudice was adopted consideration would be given to such readjustment of the line-haul rates as might be necessary to make them consistent with the service rendered. The applicant argues that the above decision is in point with the operation here involved because carriers were there permitted to operate over industry tracks for substantially the same distance as here proposed in order to make delivery at the ore storage yard. It asserts that although no question of compensation to the industry for the use of its facilities was involved, that situation was the usual one and not the unusual one such as is presented here, where extraordinarily expensive facilities, including a large bridge, must be used, and that it is aware of no decision of this Commission or of the courts holding that a carrier may not compensate an industry for the use of such unusual facilities. In our opinion the cases discussed do not support the application here presented. It is further argued by the applicant that the proposed operation is not an invasion of the territory of the intervener, because the traffic to be handled in connection therewith is the same traffic which it has handled for many years and which for the past 14 years has constituted 57.6 percent of the tonnage and 59.25 percent of the total carloads of ore moving to the Steubenville plant; and that it is our duty to preserve this traffic to the applicant, and to the steel corporation the competitive service of the two railroads. In order to remove any possibility that the steel corporation by reason of the payments to be made it by the applicant may give the latter more than its customary share of the ore tonnage, those parties are willing that we attach to any certificate issued a condition providing that the payments to be made the steel corporation under the contract shall apply to not exceeding 59.25 percent of the total carload shipments received at the Steubenville plant in any 1 year. We also are asked to consider certain predictions by witnesses for the applicant that the loss of the Steubenville tonnage comprising about 50 percent of the ore moving through Huron might necessitate the closing of that port following the end of the war because of insufficient traffic to support its operation. Summarized, the major facts are as follows: 1. The applicant now serves the steel corporation from the south and delivers the ore cars to interchange or storage tracks near the southerly limits of the plant, on the west side of the Ohio River. 2. The steel corporation, for its own convenience and economy of operation, will move its ore storage facilities from the west side to the east side of the Ohio River. 3. The steel corporation desires, mainly for competitive reasons, that the applicant serve the new facilities, but demands that the applicant pay for doing so. 4. The tracks, bridge, and other facilities between the points of interchange heretofore and at present used and the new ore storage facilities are located within the plant of the steel corporation and owned by it. 5. The said tracks, bridge, and other facilities are congested because of use in intraplant service, the bridge approaches are built on heavy grades, and operation by the applicant would be slow, difficult, and expensive. 6. The steel corporation is the only shipper which would benefit from such operation by the applicant. 7. If service at the new storage facilities is furnished by the applicant, it will incur additional operating expenses over and above the rental to be paid for the use of the corporation's properties, but will receive no additional revenue for such service. 8. The expenses used as the basis for the proposed payment by the applicant will remain constant and must be borne by the steel corporation whether or not the applicant uses the tracks, bridge, and facilities in question. CONCLUSIONS In our opinion the payment proposed would have the effect of granting unlawful concessions to the steel corporation and would be contrary to previous findings of this Commission with respect to the making of terminal allowances or the performance of excess service in industrial plants. The public need shown and the equities urged are not sufficient to warrant our approval of the plan. As stated above, the steel corporation is the only shipper involved. It will continue to have the services of the applicant at its present interchange for shipments other than ore, and if its needs for ore become sufficiently acute, no reason appears why it cannot receive it from the applicant at its present interchange and carry it directly to the ore trestle, as it has in the past, or even to haul it with its own power to the new storage: facilities, if it so desires. We are mindful of the probable adverse effect denial of the application will have upon the applicant, but we do not reject entirely the possibility that the steel corporation may be able to divide its traffic on an equitable basis between the carriers serving its plant. However, the possible unfortunate results upon the applicant do not warrant our approval of a plan which we consider contrary to principles previously enunciated by this Commission. We find that the present and future public convenience and necessity are not shown to require the operation by The Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway Company over the tracks and bridge of the Wheeling Steel Corporation extending from Steubenville, Jefferson County, Ohio, to Follansbee, Brooke County, W. Va. An appropriate order will be entered. 261 I. C. C. FINANCE DOCKET No. 14775 BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY DEBT Submitted February 3, 1945. Decided March 12, 1945 Authority granted in furtherance of a proposed plan of debt adjustment, dated September 20, 1944, as modified (1) to issue at par not exceeding $84,563,278 of collateral-trust 4-percent bonds, due January 1, 1965; $76,922,350 of firstmortgage bonds, series A, 4 percent, due July 1, 1975; $67,826,500 of firstmortgage bonds, series B, 5 percent, due July 1, 1975; $37,285,500 of Southwestern division first-mortgage bonds, series A, 5 percent, due July 1, 1980; $36,798,000 of Pittsburgh, Lake Erie & West Virginia system refunding mortgage bonds, series A, 4 percent, due November 1, 1980; $10,028,700 of Toledo-Cincinnati division first-lien and refunding mortgage 4-percent bonds, series D, due July 1, 1985; $122,639,000 of refunding and general mortgage bonds, consisting of $48,989,000 of series G, $29,218,500 of series J, $22,390,000 of series K, and $22,041,500 of series M; and $61,906,000 of 42-percent convertible bonds, due February 1, 2010; (2) to issue conditionally and pledge not exceeding $102,388,750 of refunding and general-mortgage bonds, consisting of $15,000,000 of series H, $12,500,000 of series J, $74,647,250 of series L, and $241,500 of series M; $22,553,000 of Pittsburgh, Lake Erie & West Virginia system refunding mortgage bonds, consisting of $1,583,000 of series A and $20,970,000 of series B; and $14,344,300 of Toledo-Cincinnati division first-lien and refunding mortgage bonds, consisting of $265,300 of series D, $5,000,000 of series E, and $9,079,000 of series F, pursuant to the provisions of chapter XV of An Act to Establish a Uniform System of Bankruptcy Throughout the United States, as amended and supplemented. Arthur H. Dean, DeLano Andrews, and Harry N. Baetjer for applicant. Fred N. Oliver, Willard P. Scott, John C. Donnally, Randolph Phillips, and Edward H. DeGroot, Jr., for interveners. James L. Homire and W. Meade Fletcher, Jr., for Reconstruction Finance Corporation. BY THE COMMISSION: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, by an application filed on December 4, 1944, as modified at the hearing on January 3, 1945, applied for (a) authority under section 20a of the Interstate Commerce Act (1) to issue not exceeding $84,563,276 of collateral-trust 4-percent bonds, due January 1, 1965; $76,922,350 of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company first-mortgage bonds, series A, 4 percent, due July 1, 1975; $67,826,500 of first-mortgage bonds, series B, 5 percent due July, 1975; $37,285,500 of Southwestern division first-mortgage bonds, series A, 5 percent, due July 1, 1980; $36,798,000 of Pittsburgh, Lake Erie & West Virginia system refunding mortgage bonds, series A, 4 percent, due November 1, 1980; $10,028,700 of Toledo-Cincinnati division first-lien and refunding mortgage 4-percent bonds, series D, due July 1, 1985; $122,639,000 of refunding and general mortgage bonds, consisting of $48,989,000 of series G, $29,218,500 of series J, $22,390,000 of series K, and $22,041,500 of series M; and $61,906,000 of 42-percent convertible bonds, due February 1, 2010; (2) to issue conditionally and pledge not exceeding $102,388,750 of refunding and general mortgage bonds, consisting of $15,000,000 of series H, $12,500,000 of series J, $74,647,250 of series L, and $241,500 of series M; $22,553,000 of Pittsburgh, Lake Erie & West Virginia system refunding mortgage bonds, consisting of $1,583,000 of series A and $20,970,000 of series B; and $14,344,300 of Toledo-Cincinnati division first-lien and refunding mortgage bonds, consisting of $265,300 of series D, $5,000,000 of series E, and $9,079,000 of series F, pursuant to its adjustment plan dated September 20, 1944, as proposed to be modified, under chapter XV of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, and (b) the necessary findings by this Commission to enable the applicant to file a petition under the provisions of that chapter in the pertinent court. Leave to intervene was granted to Randolph Phillips acting on behalf of himself and certain other owners of convertible bonds, and George H. Phillips, an owner of convertible bonds, in opposition to the plan, and to an informal committee of mutual savings banks holding $3,030,000 of applicant's securities in favor of the plan. No other formal objection to the application has been offered. A hearing has been held and briefs have been filed. THE APPLICANT The applicant, incorporated by an act of the State of Maryland enacted on February 28, 1827, owns and operates lines of railroads and railroad property located in the States of Maryland, West Virginia, and Ohio, and the District of Columbia, and operates, through control by stock ownership, lease, or otherwise, lines and railroad property of other companies located in those States and the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois, and the District of Columbia. As of December 31, 1943, the total mileage of its owned and subsidiary lines operated, including trackage rights, was approximately 6,144 miles. The applicant avers that it is unable to meet its debts matured and about to mature. It has accordingly prepared an adjustment plan, |