OFFICE OFTHEATI’ORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN
EonorabLo Jmaa b. Ellday~
nlr.Otbr
mtor Xrani3portatlon Dlrision
iiailroad Coramiesion of Texar
Au8tin, Texas
324
ord.er2, one dfmyine tlieccntraot cerrler application
and tkieother denying the oormon carrier a~p,plIcatloh.
..nLdappealed to the Giatriat court or irctvisCounty,
Texas, troznthe order denying the contract oerrier
appfIoa.tIon,on tha ground &hat th6 hailroad CoaaaIreIon
had, on harob 99, 1934, Isruad a valid order granting
8 contract osrrier psrmlt to imld. fn thle contention,
=:aldwas nuatalned. Smith YE. dald Transrerk 2torage
Co., Xno., 07 :;.h. (Ed) 991.
%ald,‘e operations were Intersteta,and m4x.mtha
Fadsral Lotor Carrier Lew wa5 petsed, i.aidop~iledto
the Interstate Conrasrce Conmission, 81~0, in the
alternative,for a Contract Carrier ZemIt or a Ccm-
non Carrier Cartifioate. The Xnteretate Commercle
CommIasIongranted to gald a Cormon Carrier Certlil-
cate.
Weld has, eince 1995, been optratIng under the auth-
ority of the Injunction of the Travis County DIstrIot
Court end It.6Federal certltloate. The iiaIlroa6Cods-
elon is raw willing to lasus to Kald Its oontreot ear-
rler pcrmIt and truck plates. ?irald la wIllIng to
8ubmIt to the polioe power of tho Railroad CommIssIon
but wantends that as his oparatione &aye been Interstate
the Reilroad CommIaalon*aauthorfty was alway lltited
to the question of the use of Texas roads by'kald and
only lnaldenfally,IS at all, to t&e oharaoter of hIcr
smvioa. 3% contends further that the Interstate Con-
merae Co,mmlesIon has jurllrdictionover the.oharaoter
of his aervIae, and hrin& found that he Ie a oommon
carrier; and the Railroad CoamI8sIon and the Courta
of this state having found that 'heIe entitled to
use the highways, than the Railroad Comrnisslon should
lenua to him, ae evidenae of his right to u80 tbs
highway, a aomao~ carrier osrtifioateand oommon
aarrlar plates.
*~ueatfon: Should the ~eifroed Comise~on under
thePacts ~aboreset forth aa authorizationfor tho uao
of the rotidle
ieaue to Leld a common carrier oertiiieate,
or nhould It Isnue a aontraat aarrler p~rmIt?~
In tha case of %iOEp~on 5'8. MaDonald, 93 Psd. (Ed) 937,
osrtlorarldenied, it was held that tha motor aarrler act of
1938 passe% by the 74th Congrese had not aupexsedsdArtiole Qllb,
Eon. 36LXb6 b. Kildoy, I%@ 3
vemon*r Civil Ltatutea, being tbe Texas Comon Carrier sotor
MrfleF LSW, ill6Of&W 46 th6 POWOF Of the klbO& CO~:1661OII Of
~~~~ to invastl~eteand pa6e upon the sufflcl4noy 0r tbe part;-
OU&F highway tO stand the added tF6fiiO burden i6 OonOeFQd.
m0 Aosttn axid$;a00Carts 0r Ciril Appeal6 have followed the
bou$rig Of the !fCnOMld C6QO iSla XKl&haFOr Oa608, in BoaEeOf
&fob WFit6 Ot eFrOF Were denied. &bile the iiailroadCOIPIG~B-
#loo, 16 WithCUt jUri6diOtiOQt0 inCtlh-0 intO the QU66tiOII Ot
00nranienooand nnoessity upon the iil+g of en application ror
6 0ert~ficataor pox-mit to do purely an Interstate bU6in666,
it dill lies w&thin the sound dlsoretion ot the riallmad COG-
fia#ion to grant or deny such a oertiiioate or.per&it depending
ppon the oonditlon of the partioufar highway sought to be u66d
in soeh operation. Fran the Wats outlined by you, it appear6
XaU Tren6rer &. Storage Co. 1x10. reoeired iron the Hailroad
Corrri66iOn a OOntraOt a6rrieF peX'V&t. %&it thereafter th0
Ilailroad Co60alsaion attempted to resalnd the Order grantlrig th6
pmn.%t. 521sCourt of Civil Appeal6 held that the latter order
war maid, lsaving the OFder gF6ntfng ths peF5litiIn Pull toroe
and eireiot. The judgmnt OS the wutt va6 such a~ to peridt hti
to therclaiter-operate under 6uah permit. The grurtlng of the
oontmot oaxvi~erpezxit married wltb it a finding that the high-
W8)a WQUld Stand the add6d tFSiffi0 bur46n which WOUld fOllti
iF= the OpQmtiOn Of thS pBFIE% A 0omon orrrior Qotor oar-
FIEF Ootilflaatala a broader 6UthOFity than a contrafd
zanier persIt and would authoriao a bOEitieF burden Upan the
hi&hut&ye. The Eailraad Coannir6ion baring g;rantedto "bald
Tnnefer and Storage Conrpany,Inc. oaly the authority to ~66
the hi@lW6ytB 6UrbifOiMtiY t0 fulfill the OOlltmOt6 iQVOlVd tn
the applioat2onand pemlt and tke'oourtShavine done no mm
th6~ to 6cmfim thet petit it to3&~6 that m0h oonoern ha6
netef obtained from the
Golaeireion or fawt the oourte 6x1~ auth-
ority to orpanb his the blghmafs from that OS a contr60t
u6e of
aamler to thst of ooxaon earrlsr. Tb6 60tfon of the IQttlF6ttlte
CO&meroe Oolnnfesion Itithe promiNw¶ baa BO legal braring upon
tam wlonttan. The operator bae a dontmut 0aFri8r psFmit.
x0 objeotfon ~16 86~0 to the gmntfng of another parleit iden-
t&tal with that one ior the puFpa60 Of ooJlftmLfng the BeQ4.
BOWOY~Y, the Go~!u~i66ion6bouM Bat iesue to the oon~srn a wim-
aOn @UF~UF aertlffoateexospt and, ualeaa tt be upon another
and diffareat application.
roure very truly