125
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY CPENE’kAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
O-CL-
--
fronoreble Jamee E. Klld&
htor ‘r’reneportation Dlvlolon
Railroad Conmlesion of Texar
Austin, Term
Dur SirI Oplnion~Co. 0-10~3 \.
Ret ‘iheth&%r-nciti a’;person
havi~~.,authority’to use
State hi$?hways ashn
Interstate co&on o~xrlcr
Way a man ho oial oorzoditp
permit and auth
a contmon oarrio
no. O-1518, that a
rovislono ,ot krtlole Ollb,
ot at the osme time operate
ap~lioation for psrnission to use
o do only intorotate businese, the
power to detormlne need or oonven-
OlnmlS8ion Om only deteX3IIine VihOthQr
ommeroe in 3oua.t to be oarrled, consider-
z;erafrio thers?n, are ~such as will properly
Snlth v. :iald ‘i’ranafcr dc Storeca Co.,
of e&or disnlsscd)~ R. R. Conmh of ‘lbxas
hound Lima, Ino., 92 S. X. (2d) 296 (We 99
This, however, would not affect the power of the
State to grant or nlthhold an intrastate permit or oertifloa~e~
If a oomon oarrier doing only lntorstato buslsises in
Texas is prohibited from holding a special oommbdlty petit, it ia
by the provision or Saotion d (bb.) of the Motor Carrier Aot, eupre,
Woh reeds ab followd~
4.26
“500, 6.bb. Fo eppliontfon for pornit to oporais
ns e contreot oerflclr shall bs erootad by the ComIsslon
to any porocn’ oparatlng at a oo%mon oarrier an& holdlng
a certlflcats of oonvenlsnoo and naoeaslty, nor shell
eny application for oertifioats of oonvenienos and
neoesolty be grentnd by ths Co~slseIon to any parson
operating es a oontrect oerrlor nor shell any vehio&e
bt oporatsd by any motor carrier with both a pbmlt and
e csrtiricats.’
3eotion 6 (bb) prohibits a oommoncarrier iron holdlnc(
e ooatrect pemlt and problblts a oontraot carrier from holdlng a
orrtirIoete of public oonvanienoe end naoosolty. Eeotlon 8 (bb)
thbn providtr:
Vor shall sny vehlole be opnrated by any motor
oerrlar with both a pemlt and ,a ctrtlfloate.”
Sinot.aa inttrstate oomon oarrler does not have to show
commitnot and necessity In order to obtain pem&mIdn to do busl-
mcs in Texas, tho quo&ion then arises ae to whether. or not It ia
prcvont~d from holding a npaolel comotlIty permit under the above
quoted pert of iiectlon 6 (bb) .
iihen the Le&ielature provided that the holder of a aertl-
ficete oould not at ths se~e tImo hold a ptx’zlt, It sust have meant
that e oonmon oarrler oould not at the mm time hold a oontreat per-
mlt or a eptolal obrmodlty permit. If this ba not .tNa, then the
provIsion IA quartion would hart no meaning.
The Legislature undoubtedly ho4 a rtason for prohibiting
l o o mo nosirrler rr3R opcretlog 88 a contract carrier or a Gp4Oiel
oorzodity oarrier. ;tts intent lo plainly shown when the provIsIons
or Seotlon 6 (bb) are oonstruad toctthsr. Shoe HO art unable to
find any authority for the proposltlon that an Interotatt conmon
csrricr Is to be treated differently rrom an lntmetate oomnon obr-
rler wlthln tha provision8 of Stotloa 6 (bb), we conoludc that 6n
interstate commonoarrler’oannot at the 04~4 time hold en lntrertato
Dpcolal cfomaodltp permit.
Youn very truly
LBrP
14, 1039
ApJ:~;:OVEDDEC
GENERAL
ATTORNEY CT ~