OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
ZtellroQQ
c8~eaion at TQxtlS
Auaala , Texfu
ettsntioa .to that pert of pqrrgqpq~(di,, seotloa 5a or 33.
00 there
that rb am herring a oontraat
end ah0 operator of a oomaoa
r~xafl line should taetlry that ho
e aorvic~ ao raeottho raquixwmntm
of tha budnea8 oonobrn ahi& require8 the senlosn
of the aoatmot omler ap?lioant, biut that, by the
addition Of tl-U&E ol ad'ledUb6 Or tl'kin '3QUiJ%W!It,
oomn oarrler IQ oapable of rsnllcrlng
5~ioi-1 the pro-
poecQ servioe, the authmitg to psrfom whloh the
oontrsot carrier applioant 18 fieekln& ia suoh testi-
mny about the addition of ttu@ke or 6ohedule8 or
Railroad Ocmmia5ionoi Tex.es,pagO 2
traiilequiplssnt admlsalbleor ia sach oommon
oerrier oontincrd to the aontcntionthat his ex-
istiug truok8, sohedulee end equipment are oap-
able of rendering the senloe involved in the
contraat oarrier applioatlon?
"2. 3oes the Coraalsslonhave aotual or
gotortlal power to grant e contraatWo8rrlerap
plioatlon.whereit oonolusirelyepgears that the
,exlntingtruok8, facll.itloa imd train equlpmnt
are not,adequate to perfom the .oervlces?ropossd
sy P oontraot osrrier applicant, Sut :pimreit oox-
OlUSiVely QFF%FLTSthat 8UCh OOJ31oIl
OtllTi%rSP.Tb
_ ready, able and nllllhg to increase their eahedules,
truciu, faoll$tla8or equlpaent to th% point shere
they areoapebleof ITmd6rl;lg the mrvlce proposed
by the oontraot carrier nppllcant?
"3. ?lease advise us on whoa the burden oi
pleadings and aroof lie In tho ytter ofsetab-
llshing whether or not exist& oarrlers are ran-
dsring adequate aervioe for the cornmoditlessouqht
to be transportedby the contrsot~.carrler appli-
oma.
*li has further been auggeate3 to UB that
the Fortion of paragraph:
~*llkanisa,the Cotieslon shall hare ao
authority to gant any oontraot carrier
a;jplloationfor tcietrahsporteticm0r any
oomoditiss in any territory or bet7feen
any points where the existingoarrlsrs
tirsr6r;&dnq, Gr ere oapable,of rendering,
a rea%oheblJadequate service in the trms-
i>ortatlonof s.~chcmmilties.~
refers only to spedltlimd zotor aaziers by the reicr-
6nce to existlzt~oarriors.
"!+.33az.e ;IdVl.56 33sIf fhe tern 'axistin carriers'
Railroad CormnBaslon of Taxas, Qage 3
mane only specializedriotorcarriers or doee
it mean all oarriers under the auporvisionof
this Cora!Aleslon."
Cur answer to your firs& question is that evid-
enoe tending to show that the exiatlng uarrlef is ready, able
and willing to.obtain additional equipsent to improve hle serv-
ioe would be admissible. The dlfrerenoe between ownerehlpof
a truok and the ownership of mcneg with which a truok -might
be pumhasod, in suoh a oase, would go only to the weight of
the avidence.
Uiihm!the quoted language of'the jot, the aontraat
aarrier permit mentioned ln your aeeond question should be
denied. It is exgresely provided that the contract terrier
applioetlonahall not be granted, cot 3rJy shere existirK
oarriers are rendering a reaeoaablyadequate mmrIce, ‘sut also
wnere they are OaFable of 80 doing. iienoe, we think tkrt where
the exiatlnq oarricr uakes timely otter to inprove ita aervioe,
oonvinoes the Commission and obtains fikdlngs that he is fln-
anola3J.yand phyaioally able to ryikesuoh lmprovenentand will
promptly da so, It 1s oontemplatsdChfitsuch erietin& ocrrier
or carriers shall be given the opprtunity to remedy the de-
ftate in existing services so OS to .BEXKB the acme adequate.
-‘ife are not to be understood,however, +a Raying that the mere
deolarationof intention on the part of ,thaexisticg carrier
that he wlLl acquire additional equipment and remeby the de-
z"eatsIn his serviae must necessarily be taken aa oonoluslve.
Such a deolaxatlonor promise might be accepted by the Couuni~
aion or it ml&t be rejeated, depending upon the lndlvldual
ease.
Referring to your third question, the burden Is
upon the ap;rliaant
to show in the pleading8 and by su??orting
proof that he should be granted the pernIt, iaoludlng the show-
ing that exlstlw services are inadequate.
iruranewer to your f’ourthqusstlon is that the
term Wexletlng oarriers,m aa used in paragraph (dj or -7ection
5a, d. ii.351, has reference to all typea of carriers servinS
the territory. There simply is nothing in the stat'ltelvhlah
seems to mqgeet to ue that ttle meaning or the term should be
reatrlcted to speaislized rotor oarriers.