and Newark only in New Jersey, and certain off-route points, including Paterson, Bayonne, Jersey City, Perth Amboy, and Hoboken, and (2) between Charlotte and New York, N. Y., via Chester, serving certain intermediate and off-route points; of which none are in New Jersey, and (b) over irregular routes, between Charlotte, and points in North Carolina within 30 miles of Charlotte, on the one hand, and, on the other, numerous points, including Jersey City and Perth Amboy. It proposes to purchase operating rights from vendor authorizing operations, over irregular routes, between points in 10 New Jersey counties, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Westchester County, N. Y., and points in the previously described portion of Connecticut. Under this proposed division, vendor would retain operating rights authorizing operations, over irregular routes, between points in the aforesaid 10 New Jersey counties, on the one hand, and, on the other, New York City. Vendee's traffic moving between points on its regular routes and points in the 10 New Jersey counties is interchanged with connecting carriers at the points named in footnote 4. The interchange connections are not satisfactory. It has not been able to coordinate its schedules in either direction with those of connecting carriers at the interchange points, and delays caused by unloading and reloading at these points result in losses of as much as 24 hours in through transit time. As a result of the interchange, it has been compelled to pay divisions of rates which it considers excessive in view of the relative length of the haul. It desires to unify the considered irregular-route authority with its present regular-route authority so as to be able to eliminate the unsatisfactory interchange connections. As vendor's irregular-route authority, however, does not authorize operations between points in the 10 New Jersey counties, it is clear that vendee could not lawfully transport traffic from points on its regular routes to points in those 10 counties through the gateways named in footnote 4. Vendee proposes to obviate this difficulty by transporting traffic from its southern origin points to a point in the 10 counties which it is authorized to serve, thence under the irregular-route rights proposed to be acquired, through New York City, to a point in Westchester County, and from that point it would back haul the same traffic over the same irregular routes again through New York City to destination points in the 10 New Jersey counties. It proposes to establish a terminal at some point in Westchester County. Other than the method of operation just described, the record is silent as to what operations vendee would conduct between points in Bayonne, Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, Paterson, Perth Amboy, and Trenton are points in these New Jersey counties. the 10 New Jersey counties, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Westchester County, and those in the Connecticut area. Vendee does not presently serve any point in Westchester County, but it believes that, as a result of the proposed unification, it would be able to conduct the operations described. It appears that the vendee intends to conduct the proposed operations from southern origin points to a point in Westchester County, through Newark, for example, and return through Newark with the same traffic to points in the 10 counties. In our opinion, such operations would not be within the scope of the authority purchased. It is clear that the service which vendee proposes to render under the considered irregular-route rights in combination with its own rights would bear little resemblance to that which is authorized in vendor's certificate. Considering the nature of vendor's irregular-route rights, we are of the opinion that the unification of those rights with those of vendee would not permit of a practicable or lawful operation in rendering the service proposed by vendee, nor does it appear that the proposed method of operation would preserve the true character of the service authorized under the vendor's irregular-route rights. There is no evidence that vendor and vendee have ever interchanged traffic moving to points in the 10 New Jersey counties from southern points. The question is also presented whether the proposed division of vendor's irregular-route rights may properly be found to be consistent with the public interest. Vendor proposes to retain a single point, New York City, to be served to and from the 10 New Jersey counties. Vendee would serve the named 10 New Jersey counties to and from all other points in the New York and Connecticut areas. We are not convinced that the proposed division is along clear-cut geographical lines. The only practicable way in which vendee could operate under the irregular-route rights acquired would be over city streets through New York City. While it would not serve that point under the rights acquired, we are of the opinion that the vendor's irregular-route rights were granted as a unit, and should be preserved as such, and that the selection of a single point from the rights for retention by the vendor should not be authorized. Approval of such divisions of operating rights would result in numerous carriers, instead of one, being authorized to operate within an area originally granted for a complete service by a single carrier. Such divisions of operating rights would create confusion among shippers and receivers of freight, result in wasteful and inefficient use of transportation facilities, and materially change the character of the service rendered by the original holder of the rights. Compare Burlington Truckers, Inc.-Lease-Lipe, 40 M. C. C. 726, and G. & M. Motor Transfer Co., Inc.-Purocie Motor Lines, 45 M. C. C. 161. We find that the transaction proposed would not be consistent with the public interest and that the application, accordingly, should be denied. An appropriate order will be entered. 50 M. C. C. No. MC-F-3437 1 1 ALLIED VAN LINES, INC.-PURCHASE- Submitted September 10, 1947. Decided January 20, 1948 Purchase by Allied Van Lines, Inc., of the household-goods operating rights of George Edward Johnston, doing business as Albany Transfer Company, Mary M. Tolbert and Elizabeth Yonker, doing business as Capitol Van Lines, Carlton M. Bourne, doing business as Eldredge & Bourne Moving & Storage Company, M. M. Smith, doing business as M. M. Smith Storage Warehouse, Crone Storage Company, Inc., and Utility Cartage, Inc., approved and authorized, subject to conditions. Jack R. Turney, Jr., and John R. Turney for applicants. Edward Dumbauld, Carolyn R. Just, James E. Kilday, and John F. Sonnett for Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, protestant. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 4, COMMISSIONERS MAHAFFIE, MILLER, AND MITCHELL BY DIVISION 4: By a joint application filed April 1, 1947, Allied Van Lines, Inc. of Chicago, Ill., herein called Allied, and four other motor common carriers of household goods, namely George Edward Johnston, doing business as Albany Transfer Company of Albany, Ga., Mary M. Tolbert and Elizabeth Yonker, a partnership, doing business as Capitol Van Lines, of Washington, D. C., Carlton M. Bourne, doing business as Eldredge & Bourne Moving & Storage Company, Falmouth, Mass., and M. M. Smith, doing business as M. M. Smith Storage Warehouse, of Fayetteville, N. C., herein referred to individually as Johnston, Capitol, Bourne, and Smith, respectively, and collectively as transferor-applicants, seek authority under section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act for the purchase by Allied of the household-goods operat 1 This report also embraces No. MC-F-3502, Allied Van Lines, Inc.-Purchase-Crone Storage Company, Inc., and Utility Cartage, Inc. 2 As used herein, "household goods" has the same meaning as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 17 M. C. C. 467, 505, as follows: "The term household goods means personal effects and property used or to be used in a dwelling when a part of the equipment or supply of such dwelling; furniture, fixtures, equipment and the property of stores, offices, museums, institutions, hospitals, or other establishments when a part of the stock, equipment, or supply of such stores, offices, museums, institutions, hospitals, or other establishments; and articles, including objects of art, displays, and exhibits, which because of their unusual nature or value require specialized handling and equipment usually employed in moving household goods." ing rights of the transferor-applicants, under terms whereby Allied would pay each $1, and each transferor-applicant would purchase, for $10, one share of Allied common stock, and would enter into an agency agreement with Allied. By another joint application filed June 16, 1947, in No. MC-F-3502, authority is sought under the same section for the purchase by Allied of the household-goods operating rights of Crone Storage Company, Inc., and Utility Cartage, Inc., both of Seattle, Wash., herein referred to as Crone and Utility, respectively, and also as transferor-applicants, under the same terms proposed in No. MC-F-3437. The purchases covered by these applications are proposed under the same terms and conditions, hereinafter discussed, as were approved by the Commission in Evanston Fireproof Whse.-Control-Allied Van Lines, 40 M. C. C. 557, decided April 26, 1946, herein called the Evanston case. The applications were heard on a consolidated record, at which the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, herein called protestant, opposed the applications. Briefs were filed by applicants and the protestant. All parties have agreed to the omission of an examiner's proposed report. Pursuant to authority granted under section 210a (b) in No. MC-F3437, Allied leased the household-goods operating rights of Capitol, at a nominal rental of $1 for a period expiring March 23, 1948. ALLIED The history and organization of Allied, the relationship between Allied and its agents, and the functions of each, are described in detail in the Evanston case, in Allied Van Lines, Inc.-Purchase-Allen, 45 M. C. C. 751, decided September 11, 1947, herein called the Allen case, and in cases cited in those proceedings. Except to the extent necessary, those details will not be repeated here. Allied is a cooperative, nonprofit Delaware corporation organized March 12, 1928. In 1936, Allied and more than 465 of its hauling agents filed "grandfather” applications. Allied claimed Nation-wide authority to engage in the transportation of household goods, and each of the agents claimed similar authority both radial and nonradial in lesser areas. In Allied Van Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application (embracing No. MC15735 (Sub-No. 1), Allied Van Lines, Inc. Extension-All States), 46 M. C. C. 159, herein called the Grandfather case, Allied's application for a Nation-wide certificate under the "grandfather" clause, and also under section 207 was denied, effective December 1, 1946. In the 3 As used herein "transportation" and "operations" mean as a motor common carrier In interstate or foreign commerce over irregular routes. |