# Appendix — Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0357%3A02

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1974
- **Citation:** 416 U.S. 966

## Text

App. Page
VV 873
Vv 1070
Vv s1118
V1143
V_1183
V_ 1240
V 1244
V 1253
V 1267
X 1287

1291
X 1293

Line Para.

3rd

ERRATA SHEET

2nd
2nd

insert “that” between the words
“further” and “any”

“approxi-maetly”’—s hould be
“approxi-mately”

under “Commodities Requiring
Refrigeration” insert comma
after the word “Transport”

“Twe” should be “Two”

“wv

substitute a “.” instead of the “,
following the .words “United
States”

the word “carries” should be “car-
rier”

“34.3 percent” should be “35.4
percent)

entitled “Operations:”"—the word
“cvarrier” should be “carrier”

2nd line from bottom “28,770”
under the column Tonnage—
should be “280,770”

“ir” should be “or”
“carfuel” should be “careful”

“enteres” should be “enters”

App. Page Line Para.

X 1295 l Ist “transittime’ should be “transit
time”

X 1295 10 2nd = Sentence beginning on that ‘line
should read as follows: “No
one challenged ‘this fact at the
hearing or on exceptions. In
finding that they were entitled
to little weight for the reasons
assigned, the Division acted ex
moro motu, thereby depriving
protestants of any opportunity
to defend their propriety or
correct the alleged deficien-

“cies.”

X 1299 28 Ist insert the word “between” before
“Charlotte”

X 1301 4 3rd “much of the” should be “much
of such”

1303 16 2nd “Albama” should be “Alabama”

1303 18 2nd insert “the” before the word “au-
thority”

1305 8 No.3 “evidenec” should be “evidence”
1305 21 No.3 “F.Sup.” should be “F.Supp.”
1307 3. No.6 “questions” should be “question”

1308 4 No.8 “eject” should be “reject”

~ ~ KH K x

1313

i)
Zz
°

.17 “prelicated™ should be “predi-
cated”

X 1314 4 No.2] “camparative” should be “com-
parative”

INDEX

Volume Il

Appendix °

U

V

The Relevant Docket Entries ....0......

The Report and Order Recommended by Gerald E.
Jessup and Edward EF. Kobernusz, Hearing Exam-
Irers, in Herrin Transportation Company. Exten-
s‘on—Atlanta, Georgia, served November 19, 1969

The Order of the Interstate Commerce Commission
dated October 6, 1972, denying petitions secking
a declaration by the Commission that Herrin Trans-
portation Company. Extension— Atlanta, Georgia,
involved an issue of General Transportation Im-
portance... .. PO Se So eee

Order and Judgment of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Fort
Smith Division, in Arkansas-Best Freight System,
Inc.. et al. v. United States of America and Inter-
State Commerce Commission and Red Ball Motor

Freight. Inc., et al. entered September 11. 1973.

(originally printed as Appendix J in the Joint Ap-
pendix to Jurisdictional Statements, pages 739-794,
inclusive. Reprinted in full herein) ...........

Page

863

QE Sar ers:

APPENDIX U

The Relevant Docket Entries

ASR I AAP LOGE api LE.

oe BAT os

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION

ARKANSAS-BEST FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.. an Arkansas
‘Corporation, et al.,
: Plaintiffs,
v. Civil No. FS-72-C-65

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and INTERSTATE COM-
MERCE COMMISSION, et al.,

Defendants.
DOCKET ENTRIES

Certificate

I. EF. A. Riddle, Clerk of the United States District Court
tor the Western District of Arkansas, do hereby certify that the -
record in the capticned case consists of ninety-eight original
documents. ten briefs, two reporter's transcripts of proceedings
in District Court. and fourteen volumes of abstracts of evidence,
set forth on the lists attached hereto, together with a record of
the proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission
which was filed as part of the record in the case.

All of the record. except the voluminous record of the pro-
ceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission, is for-
warded herewith in one registered package. The record of the
* proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission, in
tour cardboard boxes, as received and filed in this office, is
being forwarded by motor freight in one box in accordance with
directions of appellants.

This November 15, 1973, at Fort Smith, Arkansas.

s E. A. RIDDLE

Clerk
(Seal)

pe mes anata

—- 848 ——

INDEX Volume I
Document
No. Description of Document
1. Complaint filed October 4, 1972.

4

Order entered October 4, 1972. requesting Interstate
Commerce Commission to refrain from issuing and
putting into effect certificates complained of.

3. Telegram from firm of Rea, Cross & Knebel addressed
to Clerk requesting that it be notified of filing of
this action, filed Oct. 4. 1972.

INDEX Volume Il
Document

No. Description of Document

4. Order entered October 11, 1972, designating mem-
bers of three-judge court.

5. Motion of Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., for Leave to
Intervene as Defendant, filed Oct. 12, 1972.

6. Order Granting leave to Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., to
intervene as defendant, entered Oct. 12, 1972.

7. Answer of Intervenor Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.,
filed Oct. 12. 1972.

8. Motion of Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., for Leave
to Intervene as a Defendant, filed Oct. 12, 1972.

9. Order granting leave to Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc.,

10.

to intervene as defendant, entered Oct. 12, 1972.

Answer of Intervenor-Defendant, Red Ball Motor
Freight, Inc., filed Oct. 12, 1972.

16.

$40.2

Summons to Interstate Commerce Commission re-
turned by Marshal. as executed. filed Oct. 12,
1972.

Marshals Return on summons to United States of
America. as executed, filed Oct. 12, 1972.

Statement of court suggesting that counsel suggest date
for hearing on prayer for interlocutory injunction
and also suggesting possible agreement that instead
of hearing only for interlocutory injunction that
it may include hearing on final merits, filed Oct.
17. 1972.

Motion for Leave to Intervene as Defendants of Lorch-
Westway Corporation, et al., Shippers, filed Oct.
18. 1972.

Certificate of Service, filed Oct. 18, 1972.

&

Order allowing plffs and other parties until Oct. 30,
1972, in which to prepare, serve and submit briefs
in Opposition to motion for leave to intervene.
entered Oct. 18, 1972.

Letter from Judge Miller to Mr. Donald E. Cross,
dated Oct. 19, 1972, fixing date for hearing on ap-
plication for temporary restraining order as Nov.
1. 1972. at 9:30 a.m., filed Oct. 19, 1972.

Order entered Oct. 19, 1972. setting hearing on plffs’
application for temporary restraining order for
Nov. 1, 1972, at 9:30 a.m.

Motion of Bowman Transportation. Inc.. for Leave
to Intervene as a Defendant, filed Oct. 25, 1972.

Order allowing Bowman Transportation, Inc., to in-
tervene as ‘defendant, entered Oct. 25. 1972.

23:

24.

30.

31.

— 850 —

y

Answer of Intervenor, Bowman Transportation, Inc.,
filed Oct. 25, 1972.

Motion in Opposition to Intervention of Lorch-West-
way. et al., filed Oct. 30, 1972.

Piffs’ Brief in Opposition to Intervention by Lorch-
Westway and Forty-One Other Defendants, filed
Oct.-31, 1972.

Motion of Roadway Express, Inc., and Roadway Ex-
press, Inc., of Mississippi for Leave to Intervene,
filed Oct. 31, 1972.

Order entered Oct. 31, 1972. allowing Roadway Ex-
press, Inc., and Roadway Express, Inc., of Missis-
sippi to intervene as plaintiffs..

Opposition of Intervening Defendant Johnson Motor
Lines, Inc., to Plaintiffs’ Application for Tempo-
rary Restraining Order, filed Oct. 31, 1972.

’ Affidavit of Thomas G. Sloan, Vice President—Com-

merce, Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., filed Oct. 31,
1972.

Affidavit of Larry T. McCarthy, Vice ‘President, Red
Ball Motor Freight, Inc., filed Oct. 31, 1972.

Memorandum Supplementing Motion for Leave to In-
tervene as Defendants of Lorch-Westway Corpora-
tion, et al., Shippers, filed Nov. 1, 1972.

Affidavit of Garfield Salyers, Jr., President and Gen-
eral Manager of Bowman Transportation, Inc., filed
Nov. 1, 1972.

Memorandum Brief of Intervening Defendant, Bow-
man Transportation, Inc., in Opposition to Mo-
tion of Plaintiffs for Temporary Restraining Order,
filed Nov. 1, 1972.

_— 851 —

' INDEX VOLUME III.

Document Description of Document
No. °
32. = Affidavit of Gary D. Bronson, filed Nov. 1, 1972. -

33. = Affidavit in Support of Application for Temporary
Restraining Order, filed by H. M. Cook on Nov.
1, 1972.

34. Affidavit of John M. Records, filed Nov. 1, 1972.

35. — Affidavit of L. D. Davis, Red Line Transfer & Storage
Company, Inc.. filed Nov. 1, 1972.

36. = Affidavit ot J. Montague Williams, Mercury Motors.
Incorporated, filed Nov. 1. 1972.

37. Affidavit of Clarence Levi, Mercury Freight Lines,
Inc., in Support of Application for Temporary Re-
straining Order and Preliminary Injunctions, filed
Nov. 1, 1972.

38. = Afhdavit of Frank G. Campbell, President, Campbell
Sixty-Six Express, Inc., filed Nov. 1, 1972.

39. — Affidavit of James W. Conner, Commerce Attorney
of Roadway Express. Inc., and Roadway Express,
Inc., of Mississippi, in Support of Motion for Tem-
porary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunc-
tion, filed Nov. 1, 1972. ,

40. Affidavit on Behalf of Gordons Transports, Inc., in
Support of Application for Temporary Restraining
Order filed by William F. Goodwin on Nov. 1,
1972.

41. Order entered Nov. 1, 1972, granting intervention of
Lorch-Westway Corporation and the forty other
Shippers.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

LAMP ATL rr ot

Answer of Intervenor Shippers Lorch-Westway Cor-
poration. et al.. filed Nov. 1. 1972.

Memorandum of Points and Authorities Submitted by
Plaintiffs in Support of Application for Tempo-
rary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injune-
tion. filed Nov. 2. 1972.

Certificate of Service. tiled Nov. 2, 1972.

Statement of Counsel Regarding Affidavit in Support
of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction of Roadway Express, Inc.,
and Roadway Express, Inc., of Miss.. filed Nov.
3, 1972.

Court's Opinion. re: plffs’ application for temporary
restraining order. filed Nov. 7, 1972.

Order entered Nov. 7. 1972, restraining and enjoin-
ing Interstate Commerce Commission from imple-
menting or making effective orders entered in
Docket No. MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206) that author-
ize the issuance of Certificate of Public Conven-
ience to Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., in Docket
No. MC-2229 (Sub-No. 132): to Bowman Trans-
portation. Inc., in Docket No. MC-94201 (Sub-
No. 56): and to Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., in
Docket No. MC-106401 (Sub-No. 18). until fur-
ther orders of this court.

Order entered Nov. 17, 1972, directing that counsel
for all parties of interest serve and submit briefs
in support of their contentions on or before dates
mentioned in schedule set forth.

Joint Answer of the United States of America and the
Interstate Commerce Commission, filed Dec. 4.
1972. ‘

S50).

Ie

S2.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

— 853 —

First Amended Answer of Intervenor and Defendant,
Red Ball Motor Freight. Inc.. filed Dec. 4. 1972.

Motion of Jack Cole—Dixie Highway Company for
Leave to Intervene as a Plaintiff, filed Jan. 2, 1973.

Order allowing Jack Cole—Dixie Highway Company
to intervene as a plaintiff, entered Jan. 2, 1973.

Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Brief
of Plaintiffs. filed Jan. 5. 1973.

Order entered Jan. 9, 1973, granting plffs’ motion for
extension of time in which to file briefs and direct-
ing counsel for all parties to serve and submit
briefs in support of their contentions on or before
dates mentioned in amended schedule.

Nerox copies of pages 176, 179, 180, 185 and 186
of plaintiffs’ brief correcting typographical errors
in brief. filed March 26, 1973.

Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Briefs
by Defendants and Intervening Defendants, filed
April 5. 1973.

Order entered April 5, 1973, extending time for all
defendants and intervening defendants to file their
answer briefs to May |, 1973: and extending time
for plffs to file their reply briefs to June 1, 1973.

Order entered April 24, 1973, extending time for
deft. Interstate Commerce Commission to serve
and submit brief to May 11, 1973, and extending
time for plffs to serve and submit reply brief to
June 11, 1973.

Order entered April 26, 1973, extending time for in-
tervening defts. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., Red

APU ARNE RAMI: Si EN ete Nm Sey Tae ay

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

66.

67.

= B54 ow.

Ball Motor Freight, Inc., and Lorch-Westway Cor-
poration, et al., to serve and submit briefs to May
11, 1973; and extending time for plffs to serve and
submit reply brief to June 11, 1973.

Order amending order of April 26, 1973, to extend
time for plffs to serve and submit reply brief to
brief of Bowman Transportation Company to June
11, 1973, entered May 7, 1973.

Order entered May 10, 1973, extending time for defts.
Interstate Commerce Commission and United
States of America to serve and submit brief to
May 23, 1973; and extending time for plffs to
serve and submit reply brief to June 23, 1973.

Order entered May 22, 1973, giving deft. Interstate
Commerce Commission and deft. United States of
America until May 30, 1973, to serve and submit
brief; and giving plffs until June 30, 1973, to
serve and submit their reply brief. ;

Order entered June 13, 1973, granting leave to firm of
Crouch, Blair, Cypert & Waters to withdraw file
for purpose of photocopying portions, file to be
returned to Clerk’s Office no later than 9 a.m.,
June 18, 1973.

Pliffs’ Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Fie
Brief, filed June 25, 1973.

Order entered June 26, 1973, extending time for plffs
to file reply brief to July 16, 1973.

Piffs Motion to File Supplemental Complaint, filed
June 29, 1973.

Order entered June 29, 1973, setting hearing on plffs’
motion to file supplemental complaint for July 24,
1973, at 10 a.m.

—855— «.

68. — Piffs)s Memorandum in Support of Motion to’File Sup-
plemental Complaint. filed July 9. 1973.

68!'>. Motion of Intervening Defendant Johnson Motor
Lines. Inc.. to Dissolve Temporary Restraining
~. Order: to Convene Three Judge Court to Hear and
Determine Plaintiffs’ Application for Preliminary
Injunction and Motion to File Supplemental Com-

plaint, filed July 16, 1973.

69. Motion of Daisy Manufacturing Company to Intervene
as Defendants, filed July 19, 1973.

INDEX VOLUME IV.

Document
No. Description of Document |

70. Opposition of Intervening Defendant Johnson Motor
Lines, Inc., to Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Supple-
mental Complaint, filed July 23, 1973.

71. Motion of Intervening Defendant Red Ball Motor
Freight, Inc., to Dissolve Temporary Restraining
Order: and to Determine Plaintiffs’ Application for
Preliminary Injunction and Motion to File Sup-
plemental Complaint, filed July 23, 1973.

72. Objections of Bowman Transportation. Inc., to Plain-
tiffs’ Motion to File Supplemental Complaint, filed
July 24, 1973.

73. Affidavit of Phineas Stevens, Counsel of Record for
Red Line Transfer & Storage Co., Inc., filed July
24, 1973.

74. Crder entered July 30, 1973, denying without preju-
dice plffs’ motion to file a supplemental complaint.

7:

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.
81.

= §56--

Order entered July 30, 1973, reciting that parties may
proceed to submit requested Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and case is submitted upon
complete record now in possession of court, the
arguments of counsel heretofore presented and
all briefs heretofore submitted.

Order entered July 30, 1973, allowing Daisy Manu-
facturing Company, et al., to withdraw motion to
dismiss, motion in opposition to granting tempo-
rary restraining order and motion to file answer.

Order entered Aug. 3, 1973, extending time for at-
.torneys for defts to file requested findings of facts
and conclusions of law to Aug. ‘13, 1973, and
extending time for plffs to file requested findings
of fact and conclusions of law to Aug. 13, 1973.

Joint Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law Submitted by the United States of America
and the Interstate Commerce Commission, filed
Aug. 13, 1973.

Proposed Opinion, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions
of Law of Defendants Red Ball Motor Freight,
Inc., Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., and Lorch-West-
way Corporation, et al., filed Aug. 13, 1973.

Court’s Opinion, filed Sept. 11, 1973.

Judgment entered Sept. 11, 1973, permanently sus-
pending, annulling and setting aside and declaring
void orders of Interstate Commerce Commission
issued in Docket No. 1124 (Sub-No. 206) styled
Herrin Transportation Company, Extension—At-
lanta, Ga., to the extent that said orders authorize
issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity to Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., in

82.

83.

84.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

257 —

Docket No. MC-2229 (Sub-No. 132); to Bowman
Transportation, Inc., in Docket No. MC-94201
(Sub-No. 56); and to Johnson Motors Lines, Inc.,
in Docket No. MC-106401 (Sub-No. 18).

Motion of the United States of America and The In-
terstate Commerce Commission for Amendment
of Judgment, filed Sept. 17, 1973.

Memorandum of the United States of America and
The Interstate Commerce Commission in Support
of the Motion for Amendment of Judgment, flied
Sept. 17, 1973. .

Plaintiffs’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for
Amendment of Judgment, filed Sept. 24, 1973.

Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Sept. 27, 1973. by Johnson Motor
Lines, Inc., intervening deft.

Copy of Clerk’s letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Sept. 27,
1973.

Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Oct. 2, 1973, by Bowman Transporta-
tion, Inc., intervening deft.

Copy of Clerk's letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Oct. 2, 1973.

Court's Opinion re: motion of United States of Amer-
ica and Interstate Commerce Commission seeking
an amendment to judgment, filed Oct. 4, 1973.

Order entered Oct. 4, 1973, overruling and denying
motion of United States of America and Inter-
state Commerce Commission for amendment of
judgment entered Sept. 11, 1973.

Ce ees

— 858 —

91. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Oct. 10, 1973, by Red Ball Motor
Freight, Inc., intervening deft.

92. Copy of Clerk’s letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Oct. 10, 1973.

93. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Oct. 19, 1973, by Bowman Transpor-
tation, Inc.

94. Copy of Clerk’s letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Oct. 19, 1973.

95. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Nov. 5, 1973, by Lorch-Westway
Corp., et al.

96. Copy of Clerk’s letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Nov. 5, 1973.

97. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Nov. 9, 1973, by United States of
America and Interstate Commerce Commission,
defendants.

98. Copy of Clerk’s letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Nov. 9,
1973.

INDEX TO TRANSCRIPTS

Document
No. Description of Document

1. Court Reporter's Transcript of hearing held before the
Honorable John E. Miller, Senior District Judge,
on November 1, 1972, filed Feb. 5, 1973.

ant S59 —

2 Court Reporter's Transcript of hearing held before the
Honorable Pat Mehaffy, Honorable John E. Miller
and Honorable Paul X Williams on July 24, 1973.
filed Oct. 19. 1973.

INDEX TO BRIEFS

Document ~
No Description of Document
1. Initial Brief of Plaintiffs and Intervening Plaintiffs.
filed Feb. 15, 1973.
>. Brief of Bowman Transportation. Inc.. tiled Apr. 18,
1973.
.. Brief of Lorch-Westway Corporation, et al., Defend-

ants-Intervenors, filed May 8, 1973.

4 Exhibits to Brief of Lorch-Westway Corporation, et
al... Defendants-Interyenors.

S._ Brief of Intervening Defendant, Red Ball Motor
Freight. Inc. filed May 10, 1973.

6. Briet of Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., filed May 15.
ivi.

Exhibit No. 1 to Brief of Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.,
Intervening Defendant, filed May 15, 1973.

K. Joint Brief of the United States of America and the
Interstate Commerce Commission, filed June 1,
1973.

Y. Appendix to Joint Brief, filed June 1, 1973.

10. Reply Brief of Plaintiffs and Intervening Plaintiffs,
filed July 16, 1973.

CEMA ERR RE SOLO LOA

— 860 —

INDEX TO ABSTRACTS OF EVIDENCE

Document

No.

1.

9.

10.

11.

Description of Document

Volume I, Abstract of Evidence on Behalf of Bow-
man Transportation, Inc., Jones Truck
Lines, Inc., and Johnson Motor Lines,
Inc., before the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission in Herrin Transportation Com-
pany, Docket MC-1124, filed Nov. 12,
1973.

Volume II,

Volume III,

Volume IV,

Volume V, “
Volume VI,

Volume VII,

Volume I, Joint Abstract of the Evidence Presented
by or Specifically Relating to Public Wit-
nesses Supporting the Ten Applications
as Prepared by Certain Protestants and
Certain Applicant-Protestants before the.
Interstate Commerce Commission in Her-
rin Transportation Company, MC-1124
(Sub No. 206), filed Nov. 12, 1973.

Volume II,
Volume III,

Volume IV,

— X6]

12. Joint Abstract of the Evidence Presented by Appli-
cants as Operating Testimony as Prepared by Cer-
tain Protestants and Certain Applicant-Protestants
before the Interstate Commerce Commission in
Herrin Transportation Company. MC-1i24 (Sub
No. 206), filed Nov. 12. 1973.

13 Joint Abstract of the Evidence Presented by Protes-
tants as Prepared by Certain Protestants and
Certain Applicant-Protestants before the Interstate
Commerce Commission in Herrin Transportation
Company. MC-1124. Sub No. 206, tiled Nov. 12.

1973.

14. Joint Abstract of the Evidence Presented by Appli-

. cants in Rebuttal to -Evidence of Protestants as
Prepared by Certain Protestants and Certain Ap-
plicant-Protestants before the {nterstate Commerce
Commission in Herrin Transportation Company,
MC-1124 (Sub No. 206). filed Nov. 12. 1973.

APPENDIX V

The Report and Order Recommended by Gerald E. Jessup
and Edward E. Kobernusz, Hearing Examiners, in Herrin
Transportation Company, Extension—Atlanta, Georgia. served
November 19. 1969.

eS

— $63 —

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
Served November 19, 1969

Notice to the Parties

Exceptions, if any, must be filed with the Secretary, Interstate
Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., and served on all
other parties in interest, within 30 days from the date of serv-
ice shown above, or within such further period as may be au-
thorized for the filing of exceptions. At the expiration: of the
period for the filing of exceptions, the attached order will be-
come the order of the Commission and will become effective
unless exceptions are filed seasonably or the order is stayed or
postponed by the Commission. To be seasonably filed, excep-
tions must reach the Commission on or before the date they are
due. If exceptions are filed, replies thereto may be filed within
20 days after the final date for filing exceptions. If the recom-
mended order becomes effective as the order of the Commission,
a notice to that effect, signed by the Secretary, will be served.

oe

ee es

— 864 —
No. MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206)!

HERRIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
EXTENSION—ATLANTA, GA.

Decided

In each proceeding public convenience and necessity found not
shown to require operation by applicant in interstate or
foreign commerce as a common carrier by motor vehicle
of general commodities, with exceptions, over the routes,
or between the points and’ territories described in the re-

' spective applications. Applications denied.

Maurice F. Bishop, John P. Carlton, William P. Jackson, Jr.,
James B. Blair, W. T. Brunson, William A. Chestnutt, A. Alvis
Layne, Kim D. Mann, R. W. Collinsworth, Donald E. Cross,
Douglas Faris, Leroy Hallman, Ralph W. Pulley, Jr., William
E. Livingstone, I11, Carl L. Phinney, Claude N. Knox, Donald
B. Lockridge, Charles D. Mathews, David Crockett, Jerry Prest-
ridge, Robert S. Richard, Samuel W. Taylor, Thomas G. Sloan,

1 This report also embraces: (1) No. MC-2202 (Sub-No. 273),
Roadway Express, Inc., Extension—New Orleans, La., (2) No. MC-
2229 (Sub-No. 132), Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., Extension—
Auanta, Ga., (3) No. MC-11207 (Sub-No. 233), Deaton Truck
Line, Inc., Re-entitled Deaton, Inc., Extension—Dallas, Tex., (4)
No. MC-18088 (Sub-No. 36), Floyd & Beasley Transfer Company.
Inc., Extension—Dallas, Tex., (5) No. MC-59680 (Sub-No. 147),
Strickland Transportation Co., Inc., Extension—Atlanta, Ga., (6)
No. MC-76177 (Sub-No. 304), Baggett Transportation Company
Extension—Dallas, Tex., (7) No. MC-94201 (Sub-No. 56), Bowman
Transportation, Inc., Extension—Dallas, Tex., (8) No. MC-106401
(Sub-No. 18), Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., Extension—Dallas, Tex.,
and (9) No. MC-111231 (Sub-No. 67), Jones Truck Lines, Inc.,
Extension—Atlanta, Ga.

A — 865 —

and William O. Turney for applicants. and for certain of the ~
applicants as protestants to other applications.

M. Ward Bailey, Lennox O. Boyles, € lifford E. Hillerby.
Leon E. Ledford, Drew L. Carraway, John §S. Fessenden, James
NV. Clay, Ill, Morris G. Cobb, S. Earl Dove, James H. Epps,
i, Charles L. Ford, Jr., Robert W. Gerson, S. E. Somers, Jr.,
Charles O. Gillogly, W. F. Goodwin, Wentworth E. Griffin, Ste-
phen L. Grossman, G. F. Gunn, Jr., B. W. Latourette, Jr., John
C. Henderson, Rollo E. Kidwell, W. C. Mauldin, Lewis B.
Doggett, J. E. May, James W. Nisbet, Ed White, Richard M.,
Gleason. V. R. Oldenburg. Sol H. Proctor, John M. Records,
R. J. Reynolds, Jr., R. J. Reynolds, 11, Lloyd M. Roach, Phil-
lip Robinson, Dan Felts, C lifford E. Sanders, John Schwab, Paul
M. Daniell, Alan E. Serby,’Keith Y. Sharpe, Phineas Stevens,
F. T. Stroud, Robert E. Tate, Eugene K. Walburn, Guy H. Pos-
tell, Harold G. Hernly, Harold G. Hernly, Jr.. and Richard A.
Bishop for protestants.

REPORT AND CRDER

Recommended by Gerald E. Jessup and Edward E. Kobernusz
Hearing Examiners

Opening Statement:

Each of the ten applicants herein filed an appropriate appli-
cation to extend its motor common carrier authority for the
transportation of general commodities (with exceptions) so as
to permit additional operations in a portion of the country gen-
erally lying between Atlanta, Ga., Birmingham. Ala., and Pen-
sacola, Fla., on the east and Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth,
Tex.. on the west. The extent of the authority sought varies
with each applicant. In general, however, the four Texas or

— 866 —

southwestern applicants, namely Herrin,” Red Ball, Strickland,
and Jor 2s, seek to extend their operations to Birmingham and
Atlanta on the east; the five southern carriers, namely Deaton,
Floyd & Beasley, Baggett, Bowman, and Johnson are seeking
to extend their authority into the Southwest, primarily to Texas
points (Bowman also seeking extension to Kansas City, Mo.,
and Topeka, Kans.); and Roadway proposes to extend its au-
thority from Montgomery, Ala., to Pensacola, Fla., and New
Orleans and Baton Rouge, La. Regular route authority is sought
by all but one of the applicants. Each applicant proposes to
tack the authority sought with its present operations.

There is set forth in Appendix A the name, headquarters,
docket number, application filing date and authority sought (as
amended) for each of the ten applicants. In addition there is
included in this appendix information concerning each of the
applicant's present authority, motor vehicle equipment, terminal
facilities and financial statements.

The applicants are established interstate motor common car-
riers of general commodities having been engaged in such op-
erations under authority of this Commission for many years.
Each operates a sizable fleet of trucking equipment, maintains
terminals in the territories served, has an active safety program,
and is capable of performing the operations proposed.

Hearing

The applications were referred to the examiners for hearing
and the recommendation of appropriate orders. Because of the

- Herrin Transportation Company was merged .into McLean
Trucking Company, effective October 1, 1969, pursuant to author-
ity in No. MC-F-10121, McLean Trucking Company—Control and
Merger—Herrin Transportation Company (not printed), decided
August 5, 1969.

mt AGT

extensive nature of the hearings proposed and the burdens that
would be imposed upon counsel, and the parties by a continu-
ous hearing session, both applicants and the protestants sought
and were permitted to have the hearings scheduled at intermit-
tent intervals.” By agreement of the parties 3 separate sessions
of the hearings were held at each Washington, D. C., Atlanta,
Ga.. and Dallas, Tex., and single sessions at Houston, Tex.,
New Orleans, La., Kansas City, Mo., Tulsa, Okla., and Mem-
phis, Tenn., during a period extending from March 1966 to
August 1967. In all there were 149 days of hearing of which
113 days were devoted to the applicants’ presentation of evi-
dence and 36 days to the protestants’ presentation. The tran-
script of testimony covers 23,423 pages and there are 1,989
exhibits. A total of 950 witnesses testified on behalf of appli-
cants including 933 public witnesses who are engaged in ship-
ping or receiving freight by motor carrier.* Many of the public
witnesses testified on behalf of more than one applicant. The
total number of public witnesses called by each carrier and the
number supporting the various carriers is as follows:+

* Included are 12 motor common carrier witnesses testifying on
behalf of certain of the applicants concerning the need for additional
connecting line services which would be available through the grant
of the particular application supported.

‘ Appendix B is a listing of the public witnesses appearing on be-
half of applicants, numbered in the order of their appearance and
containing the name of the company represented and the epplicants
Supported.

— 868 —
Witnesses Witness
Carrier Presented” Support
Herrin 86 116
Roadway 97 123
Red Ball 130 171
Deaton 33 58 )
Floyd & Beasley 19 4]
Strickland 103 134
Baggett 38 52
Bowman 192 363
Johnson 105 256
Jones 130 222

Appearances were entered on behalf of a total of 66 protes-
tants although 6 subsequently withdrew their opposition. Forty-
eight of the protestants offered evidence in support of their
opposition through the testimony of 62 witnesses and numerous
exhibits."

Public Witnesses

General: The ten applicants, as a group, operate over a wide
area extending from Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas on the
west and southwest to the eastern seaboard from Florida to
New England, and from the Gulf Coast on the south to Wis-

* Where more than one counsel conducted direct examination of
the witness credit is}given to the carrier represcated by the lead
counsel presenting the witness.

* The evidence on behalf of protestants is set forth in Appen-
dix D.

— 869 —

consin and the Canadian border on the north. Indeed the 933
public witnesses supporting these applications came from the
four corners of this expansive territory, including two from
Canada. To facilitate consideration of their evidence the wit-
nesses have been grouped into a number of categories, in gen-
eral according to the type of commodities they handle. The
grouping itself is somewhat superficial, especially as some of
the witnesses may handle freight in more than one category.
The important point is that their testimony has been considered
and evaluated. It is set forth in Appendix C.

A review of the testimeny of these 933 public witnesses dis-
closes that a substantial number of them had made no investiga-
tion of existing motor carrier transportation services available
to handle their shipments. Many who supported an applicant
for single-line service into its proposed new territory had not
tried all of the existing single-line services available, nor had
they used the joint-line service which that applicant had avail-
able to serve them. Many of the receivers of freight testifying _
as to their need for the proposed services of one or more of
the applicants. heretofore had left the routing and selection of
carrier services entirely up to their suppliers. Some stated that
they would have no objection to trying the existing services
now that they knew of them. Others indicated that while they
were aware that other services were available they had made
no effort to use them: and some stated that they had no inter-
est in using a carrier that had not solicited their traffic, con-
tending that the burden is upon carriers to inform shippers of
their services through personal solicitation. The Commission
has never accepted this view.

The failure of these shipper witnesses to investigate and try
the existing carrier services available to them, or to show that
such action would be useless as a means of meeting their trans-
portation needs, reflects adversely upon the weight to be given
their testimony. Certainly it indicates that the problems they .

— 870 —

were experiencing with respect to their transportation services
were not sufficiently important or serious to spur them to seek
other carrier service prior to being requested to testify in this
proceeding.

Aside from an indication of the nature and volume of their
traffic, the testimony of such witnesses, who have no knowl-
edge of the existing transportation services available to them
and who are not in a position to testify as to the inadequacies
of such service, is neither sufficiently probative nor substantial
enough to be of value in determining whether the present or
future public convenience and necessity require the additional
services proposed.‘

Public Need—Quantum of Service: Many of the shipper wit-
nesses have experienced growth in their business in line with
the population, economic, and industrial growth in the area
involved in these applications, and for the immediate future
they anticipate a continuing increase in the amount of freight
they ship or receive. The transportation services and facilities
in the area likewise have grown to meet these needs and the
existing carriers have very substantial investments for the main-
tenance of such service. Appendix C discloses that these wit-
nesses ship or receive a wide variety of commodities and that
with but few exceptions they have a number of carriers of serv-
ices available to them.

In analyzing the evidence of the public witnesses from a
commodity standpoint, the only need shown for additional
service relates to less-than-truckload shipments of commodities
requiring refrigeration (including meats, candy and pharmaceu-
ticals). Truckloads of these shipments generally are transported
by carriers specializing in refrigeration service, or they move

Warren Transport, inc. Common Carrier Application, 69 M.C.
C 241, 246 (1956); Miller Extension—Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 61
M.C.C: 631, 637 (1953).

S871 —

|

in private carriage. The handling of less-than-truckload freight
of this type, however, poses a number of practical problems
especially to general freight carriers, and many of them (includ-
ing some of the applicants and protestants) do not offer that
type of service, or have very limited facilities for handling such
traffic. Some of the witnesses testifying as to their need for
this service have not requested it from the general freight car-
riers serving their cities even though they provide it. One wit-
ness supporting an application on the basis of a proposed daily
pickup of its less-than-truckload shipments requiring refrigera-
tion, previously had made arrangements with one of the protes-
tants whereby that carrier would pickup its less-than-truckload
shipments once a week rather than daily, and that service
proved to be mutually beneficial. It is possible that with a
more cooperative effort and better communication between the
shippers and carriers the existing carriers can answer the needs
for this service and eliminate or minimize difficulties in pro-
viding it. In any event, the evidence of the need for additional
service in this limited area is neither sufficient to support a grant
of general commodity authority nor adequate to make a deter-
mination that the volume of such freight will sustain that type
of operation by one or more of the applicants.

The evidence further shows that shippers of comfnodities re-
quiring the use of flat-bed trailers may not always be able to
obtain such equipment immediately upon request. However,
there is no indication of unreasonable delay and no showing
that the existing carrier services cannot handle the volume of
freight available with reasonable dispatch.

Geographically, there is a multiplicity of single-line and joint-
line service between major points within the areas involved in
these applications. As noted in other portions of this report
some of the applicants now offer single-line service between
points which other applicants are here seeking authority to in-
stitute new single-line services; and the joint-line services avail-

.

Weer errs. cnr SINE HF PT AE RUS

—s2=

able between these applicants virtually blanket the area insofar
as any substantial volume of freight may be involved.

Single-line motor carrier operations by general commodity
carriers between Atlanta and or Birmingham on the one hand.
and, on the other, D&llas, include those of ETMF, Roadway.
Gordons, Transcon, Braswell, Mercury Freight, and Herrin
(now merged into McLean). Between Atlanta and or Birming-
ham on the one hand, and, on the other. Housto: most of these
same carriers and Ryder are authorized to operaie. Between
Atlanta and or Birmingham on the one hand, and, on the other,
Jackson, Miss., such carriers as Deaton, Dixie, Campbell Sixty-
Six, Braswell, West, and Ryder operate. Between Atlanta
and, or Birmingham and New Orleans Johnson, Dixie, Baggett,
West, Deaton, and Campbell Sixty-Six operate. Between At-
lanta and or Birmingham, on the one hand, and, Kansas City
on the other, single-line service is offered by Watson-Wilson,
T.I.M.E., Gordons, Campbell Sixty-Six. and Transcon. Be-
tween Mobile and various points in Mississippi, Louisiana and
Texas there are such carriers as Red Ball, Herrin. West and
Johnson. Between Atlanta and or Birmingham on the one
hand, and, on the other, Oklahoma City and Tulsa there are
such carrier services as T.I.M.E. and Transcon. These carriers
also are authorized to serve many additional intermediate points
and to provide single-line services as heretofore stated between
substantially all the major cities and communities in the area
involved in these applications particularly in the States of Ala-
bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. Other
single-line services are available between the Houston and Dal-
las areas on the one hand, and various points in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Arkansas on the other. In addition, it will be
observed from Appendix D that there are numerous single-line
services between points in the east and midwest on the one
hand, and, on the other, the Dallas, Houston, New Orleans.
Baton Rouge, Little Rock, Memphis, and Gulf Coast areas.

— 873 —

The applications of three of the applicants admittedly repre-
sent efforts by them to keep pace with any realignment of exist-
ing motor carrier operational patterns, it being their position
that if the Commission grants any of the applications, theirs
also must be granted in order for them to survive and remain
viable competitive carriers in the area. Two of these applicants
on brief urge that the Commission find that the evidence fails
to show a need by the shipping public for the services of any of
the applicants, and iurther any need for motor carrier service
expressed by the public witnesses can be met by full utilization
of existing carriers including those authorized to perform addi-
tional services in the involved territory following the closing
of this record. We believe that the evidence fully warrants such

a finding. 4

Public Need—Quality of Service: Most of the public wit-
nesses supporting the applications expressed varying degrees of
dissatisfaction with their existing services. Their complaints
embrace poor tracing and claim service, interline difficulties,
loss and damage, refusals to handle shipments, inconsistent and
excessive transit time, poor pickup service, and desire for single-
line service. The entire scope of these complaints fall upon
both applicants and protestants, as well as upon other carrier
services which the witnesses use. For example, witnesses sup-
porting one particular applicant often complain of poor service
by other applicants as well as by protestants and other carrier
services. The record discloses that many of the witnesses sup-
porting an applicant for an extension of its operation have not
used the service of the applicant, either in single-line or in joint-
line service although the applicant is authorized to serve the
witness's shipping or receiving facility. Some of these major
complaints are discussed under separate portions of this report.

The complaints of the supporting witnesses with respect to
loss and damage, claim handling, and tracing problems, are,
in fact, minimal. The crux of such complaints is that single-

Let RFRA at

— 874 —
'

line service minimizes these difficulties, and with that conclu-
sion there appears to be little argument. These are problems
common to all carrier services and which carriers struggled to
overcome. The evidence does not warrant a conclusion that
any of the applicants will perform a materially superior service
in these respects than the other carriers operating in a particu-
lar area.

The record contains evidence of carriers refusing or failing
to perform properly under their certificates. Included in such
failures are some of the applicants as well as some of the
protestants. These incider: include what appears to be action
in the nature of an unauthorized temporary embargo in an effort
to overcome some traffic imbalance or remedy an equipment
distribution problem: some involve a freight selectivity by a di-
rect suggestion that the shipper use other carriers or by various
tariff restrictions or delayed pickup service. While these prac-
tices are not widespread and some only temporary, none of
them is to be condoned. To the extent that carriers may be
failing properly to perform under their certificates and under
the terms of section 216(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act,
remedies are available other than the yranting of authority to —
more carriers. We 4o not believe that authorization of addi-
tional carrier services in a area served by an adequate number
of carriers fosters sound economic conditions in transportation;
nor is it the only way to minimize the service failures and im-
prove service to the public. Where complaints of these failures
have been made to the carriers or proper authorities, remedial
action has been taken.

The evidence does not warrant a finding that the general
quality of service of the applicants, or any of them, is sufficiently
superior to that of the existing carrier services to support a con-
clusion that the public convenience and necessity require the

operation proposed.

$15

Schedules—Transit Time

One of the primary points ‘sought to be established by appli-
cants as a basis for granting their respective applications is that
the shippers and. receivers of freight moving to, from, oF be-
tween ‘points in the areas here in question are dissatisfied with
the length of time it takes for the transportation of their goods
and with the inconsistency of the transportation services used.
Faster and more dependable service will enable them to reduce
costly inventories, better maintain production schedules, and to
meet customer demands. Certainly shippers are entitled to
transportation services which will enable them to move their
merchandise or replenish their stock with the least delay and
inconvenience consistent with economically and efficient oper-
ation of all transportation agencies serving their localities.

The applicants propose certain service standards or schedules
for the operations they intend to offer the public under their
" respective applications.” Without restating these various pro-

s Throughout the hearing the terms “elapsed time from billing
date” or “between billing dates” were used when evidence was pre-
sented pertaining to the time that freight was in transit as determined
by delivery receipts showing the carrier's freight bill date and date of
delivery of the freight to the consignees Or connecting carriers or the
latter's billing date. Witnesses for the carriers testified that in most
instances the billing date would be the actual date the freight was
received for transportation. For the purposes of uniformity Satur-
days, Sundays and holidays are excluded from the elapsed calendar
days unless the freight was actually picked up or delivered on one
of those days. It is recognized that to some extent this practice dis-
torts the performance records of the carriers who do conduct some
operatjons over the road on weekends and holidays. Throughout
this report unless otherwise indicated reference to schedules or tran-
sit time embraces this concept and also refers to less-than-truckload

freight.

% Deaton, an irregular route carrier, is not proposing scheduled
service. However, the testimony indicates that on the basis of a con-
templated minimum volume of freight being available, shippers could
reasonably count on second or third day service between most of
the points proposed to be served and first day service between some

of the nearer points.

Ker as

— 876 —

posals in detail the applicants here are proposing in general
first and second day service between Atlanta and Birmingham.
on the one hand, and, on the other, the Mississippi, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Texas and Missouri points involved in these appli-
cations. Some of the applicants also offered evidence of sched-
ules they propose between points on their existing routes and
points on the, proposed new routes.

A great deal of evidence was offered by certain of the appli-
cants intending to show that the schedules they propose are
feasible and that they are capable of performing such service
for the public. Protestants on the other hand testified that
certain of the applicants’ schedules are not feasible and used
the applicants’ own evidence as well as other evidence of their
operations to show that the actual operations of applicants over
similar distances in some instances will not support the practi-
cality of some of the schedules proposed. The anomaly of the
situation is emphasized by the fact that most of the applicants
also are protestants and in some instances one applicant has
seriously questioned the feasibility and practicality of the sched-
ules proposed by other applicants.

A major portion of the public witnesses testifying on the
behalf of the various applicants voiced some degree of dis-
satisfaction with the length of time required for the transporta-
tion of their shipments or with the inconsistence of the service.
Many of the public witnesses so complaining of slow and in-
consistent service submitted abstracts of freight bills showing
service they have received from some of the carriers used, in-
cluding applicants, protestants and other carrier services. In
some instances these bills were selected specifically to show
poor service, or the abstracts were prepared from records of
shipments upon which there had been some difficulty. In other
instances they comprised only a few shipments made over a
very extensive period of time; and in some instances the bills
represented substantially all shipments in a given period be-

Kon

—- $77 =

tween certain points or areas. It was not unusual for the wit-
nesses to have permitted the applicant they supported to select
the bills and prepare the abstragts. The transit time studies of
these public witnesses reflect many instances of poor transporta-
tion service by protestants, applicants, as well as other carriers.
They also reflect instances of goou service. |

Some of the public witnesses acknowledge that their present
transportation service is adequate and satisfactory, but testified
that if their freight would be delivered consistently on the sched-
ules proposed by the particular applicant they supported it
would be an improvement over their existing service. Many
of the public witnesses based their support of a particular appli-
cant upon the service schedules proposed, and assuming a high
degree of adherence to those schedules.

In many instances a public witness supporting one applicant
was critical of the service of other applicants as well as some
protestants. The same applicant carrier service has been both
praised and condemned by different witnesses from the same
locale, and in some instances a witness supporting 4 particular

applicant has been critical of the service he has received from
that carrier in the past.

The number of witnesses complaining of unsatisfactory tran-
sit time and inconsistency-of service by the transportation agen-
cies being used is impressive at first blush, but palls with analy-
sis. While the many transit time studies of the supporting
shipper witnesses reflect numerous instances of service defi-
ciencies, the evidence also discloses that many of these same
witnesses have made no investigation of the carrier services
available nor experimented with the various combinations of
available service to improve their transportation. Concerned
shippers would hardly route their freight from the Carolinas to
Dallas by way of Houston as reflected by some of the exhibits
when much shorter routings are available; nor would they over

MATA Kee gt Ott A

— a

— 878 — JI

‘

the years fail to specify routing of their shipments for cither the
single-line or joint-line services available to them. The im-
portance of rapid transit time is questionable for some of the
supporting shippers who make a practice of accumuiating ship-
ments for certain stores or areas for once-a-week or other peri-
odic shipments. Little weight can be given to the testimony of
some of the shippers supporting an applicant for faster transit
time when the witness uses 4 combination of the slower water
carrier service from eastern origins to the Gulf Coast and rail
or motor service to destination: nor to those witnesses who have
not tried the joint-line service of the applicant they are support-
ing nor have used the service of that applicant to the point it
is now authorized to serve.

Almost every shipper is interested in getting his products to
destination as economically and quickly as possible, and is in-
clined to support the application of any carrier who promises
better service than he already has available. As the Commis-
sion has noted in other proceedings.'” the number of shipper
witnesses which an applicant can present at a hearing to testify
that their service is inadequate appears to be governed largely
by the energy put forth and the expense it is willing to incur.

A study of the many exhibits depicting the service perform-
ance of applicants and protestants discloses that in the main
the carriers participating in these proceedings are substantial
and responsible carriers. They all have substantially the same
problems affecting pickups, checking, sorting, billing, and trans-
porting the freight (including operation through break-bulk
points as necessary to effect proper loading factors), unloading
freight from the line-haul trailers, loading it into delivery trucks.
and effecting delivery to the consignees or connecting carriers.

‘© Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc.—Purchase (Portion)-—AI-
len Motor Lines, 59 M.C.C. 695, 722 (decision reversed on other
grounds 65 M.C.C. 163).

— ¥79 —

They all have experienced service failures in their operations.
They all also can point to commendable service records.

Operating schedules and procedures are functions of manage-
ment and are subject to change 4s economic, technological, and
other circumstances and factors may dictate. Although motor
common carriers have an obligation to transport the property
tendered to them with reasonable promptness and with the
exercise of reasonable diligence and care they are not guaran-
tors of schedules. The testimony of the several shipper witnesses
who supported certain applicants for their proposed schedules
which would be of particular assistance to them in making emer-
gency shipments (such as drugs or repair parts) must be weighed
in-the light of the practicalities involved. In the face of other-
wise normally satisfactory service by existing carriers, demands
for emergency service are not a sufficient basis to support a
grant of authority to additional carriers.’

Notwithstanding the proposed schedules of any particular ap-
plicant, the record does not establish that applicants, or any of
them. afford in general transportation services which are so
superior to those of the existing comparable carrier services
available to the shippers as to warrant a finding on that basis
that public convenience and necessity require the proposed new
services. Stated differently, the transit time studies of the par-
ticipants in these proceedings, as 4 whole, and considering the
circumstances under which they were made, do not warrant the
conclusion that the existing carrier services are not reasonably
adequate to meet the real needs of the shipping public.'* The
solution to the instances in which the public has been subjected

11 M & M Fast Freight, Inc., Extension—General Commodities,
68 M.C.C. 513, 519 (1956).

12 Cf. Terminal Transport Co., Inc., Ext.—Birmingham, 103
M.C.C. 699, 714, Hancock Trucking, Inc., Ext.—Gulf and West
Coast Routes, 62 M.C.C. 513, 535-536.

— 880 —

to poor transportation services in the circumstances here in-
volved does not lie in the authorization of additional carrier
services but rather in the exercise of more diligence and care
by the carriers and shippers.

Single-Line vs. Joint-Line Service

Many of the Witnesses support these applications for the pur-
pose of obtaining single-line service in lieu-ef the multiple line
services they are using. Their reasons for desiring single-line
service are that it will improve transit time, avoid interchange
delays, reduce damage by less handling, and improve claim
and tracing experience by providing a single line responsibility.

At present the southeastern applicants interline their freight
moving to or from the Southwest at the primary gateway points
of Atlanta, Birmingham, New Orleans and Memphis, with some
minor connections at such points as Mobile, Jacksqn, and
Shreveport. The southwestern applicants interline their freight
moving to or from southeastern and eastern points primarily at
Memphis, New Orleans, and Dallas, and to a lesser extent, at
Jackson, Shreveport. and Macon. To the extent that they can
control or influence the routing of traffic the carriers generally
seek to long-haul their interline freight to or, from their most
distant gateway. Thus the noted gateway points reflect to a
significant degree the long-haul terminal points of these apphi-
cants, other than Roadway. Under their respective proposals
the southeastern applicants seek to break through their existing
gateways to DaJlas and Houston (and Bowman also to Kansas
City), and conversely the southwestern applicants seek to break
through their existing gateways to Atlanta and Birmingham.

Starting with the assumption that normally an interchange of
less-than-truckload freight adds a day to the time a shipment
is in transit, these witnesses favor elimination of that delay. At

—

times the delay may be longer, especially if the originating
carrier encounters difficulty in effecting the interline. They also
complain that tracing shipments is more difficult and slower
when the origin carrier must attempt to locate shipments
through its connecting carriers. The same situation prevails
with respect to the handling of claims. Several of the witnesses
testified that their products are susceptible to damage through
excessive handling and for that reason they desire to have avail-
able as much single-line service and to as many points as pos-
sible.

A great majority of the supporting witnesses express prefer-
ence for single-line service and we recognize that in the absence
of other factors single-line service has a number of potential
advantages and fewer operational problems than joint-line serv-
ice and normally is more satisfactory. We note, however, that
a number of the witnesses favoring single-line service use joint-
line service even though single-line service is available. At
times this is done in an effort to divide the traffic among the
carriers serving the particular shipper. Sometimes it is the
result of giving the first carrier arriving all of the freight avail-
able regardless of destination as a means of clearing the loading
platform. Sometimes it results from a preference of the shipper
to use a particular local carrier to originate all of its freight
even though there are numerous other carriers authorized to
serve the shipper, many offering single-line services. Some of
the other witnesses favoring single-line service do not route
their freight, leaving it up to their suppliers or others, and some
have made no investigation of the services available to them.
A number of the witnesses support two applicants, each for
single-line service, but have not tried the joint-line services
offered by them either together or with other carriers. Such
evidence although indicating a possible preference for single-
line service is not sufficient to support a grant of additional
carrier authority.

AERP LBIOLE LINED ALG

necial

Res SY ete

— 882 —

Some of the witnesses seek to reduce the number of participat-
ing joint-line carriers handling their freight; for example, reduc-
ing their service from three line to two line services. Often
these witnesses have two-line service available which they have
not tried or are not using. Others seek merely a change of the
interlining gateway point from one locality to another. In this
connection some witnesses want to route their freight over the
Atlanta gateway, rather than over the Memphis gateway which
they are using, because of purported heavy freight congestion
at Memphis. Others wanted to avoid the Atlanta gateway as
an interline point because of its purported congestion. The
testimony of a number of these witnesses indicates_that they
were under the impression that the proposal of the applicant
which they support would offer a single-line service whereas in
fact the service would remain joint line even though the applica-
tion bé granted.

The carrier proposals to some extent involve contemplated
improvement of service between smaller towns and communi-
ties, on the one hand, and, on the other, the larger supply and
distribution centers. Depending upon the particular applicant
supported the evidence of many witnesses relate to service be-
tween the smaller communities in the, Southwest and the distribu-
tion and supply centers of Atlanta and Birmingham: or between
many of the cities, towns and communities in the East and
Southeast and the supply and distribution centers of Dallas and
Houston.- As an example Red Ball, Herrin and Jones serve
many of the smaller communities in the Southwest and seek
authority which will permit singleline service between these
communities and primary supply and distribution points of
Atlanta and Birmingham. On the other hand, Johnson serves
many communities in the East and Southeast and describes the
basic purpose of its application as being to provide an overhead
single-line service between those areas and the primary supply
and distribution points in the Southwest, working closely with
connecting carriers on joint-line traffic. Bowman and Roadway

_— 883 —

also suggest that their present broad territorial coverage would
provide new single-line services for many shippers and to many

areas.

The result is that these applications involve the extension of
operations by some applicants into areas normally served by
other applicants, as well as by numerous other carriers includ-
ing protestants. For example, Roadway. (as well as a number
of the protestants) now provides single-line service between
Atlanta and or Birmingham, on the one hand, and, on the
other, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and other Texas points.
The other applicants are here seeking such authority. Applicant
Johnson now provides single-line service between Atlanta and
east coast points, on the one hand, and, on the other, such
points as Mobile, Pensacola and New Orleans. .

Applicant Roadway here seeks authority to perform that
service. Applicants Johnson. Baggett and Deaton now provide
single-line service between Atlanta and /or Birmingham, on the
one hand, and, on the other, New Orleans, which authority
applicants Herrin, Red Ball and Strickland would obtain under
their proposals. Applicant Bowman now provides single-line
service between Atlanta and Birmingham and applicant Deaton
between Birmingham and certain Mississippi points. Applicants
Jones, Strickland and Red Ball here seek such authority between
Atlanta and Birmingham, and applicants Bowman, Johnson,
_ Red Ball and Strickland between one or both of those cities and
certain Mississippi points.

While these examples do not purport to represent all of the
instances in which one applicant seeks authority to duplicate
the single-line service of another applicant, they will suffice to
‘llustrate the fact that in many instances witnesses supporting
one applicant for single-line service have available the single-
line services of other applicants. In addition there are single-
line services of a number of protestants and other carriers. For

— 884 —

example, in addition to applicant Roadway providing single-line
service between Atlanta and Dallas, there are also such other
carriers as ETMF, Gordons, Transcon and T.1.M.E.'* Between
Atlanta and Houston in addition applicant Roadway ETMF,
Ryder and Transcon provide single-line service.'* Between
Atlanta or Birmingham and Jackson, Miss., single-line service
is provided by Dixic, Deaton, Ryder, West (from Birmingham
only), Campbell Sixty-Six, Braswell, and Gordons although the
latter’s route is circuitous. Between Birmingham and Baton
Rouge single-line service is provided by Ryder, Campbell Sixty-
Six, Mercury Freight and Braswell (subsequent to the hearing).
There are many other single-line services available between
other points involved in these proceedings as for example, Trans-
con, Watson-Wilson, Gordons and Campbell Sixty-Six between
Kansas City and Atlanta; Transcon and T.I.M.E. between
Atlanta in the Southeast and Little Rock, Tulsa and Oklahoma
City. ETMF and Ryder between Atlanta or Birmingham and
Shreveport; and Mason & Dixon, Consolidated Freightways,
T.I.M.E., Transcon, ABF, Viking, Jack Cole and ET&WNC
between points in the East and Midwest. on the one hand, and,
on the other, various points specified in these applications.

A number of the witnesses testifying in support of single-line
service were from small communities located some distance
from the larger production and distribution centers. The plan
for less-than-truckload service at these communities generally
calls for operation through at least one break-bulk terminal
even though the service be single-line. This is dictated by the
economic practicalities of operations and understandably in-
volves some delay in transit. Most of these witnesses admittedly
use a substantial amount of joint-line service to reach many
points and areas throughout the country. Their interests in

'* Since the close of the hearing Herrin, Braswell and Mercury
Freight also obiained authority to operate between Atlanta and
Dallas and Atlanta and Houston.

—. 885 —

these applications is to obtain as much single-line service as

possible.

The evidence also discloses some instances in which carriers
authorized to perform a single-line service between certain
points, in practice interline the freight with other carriers. This
is done by some of both protestants and applicants for various
reasons but primarily because the small volume of freight in-
volved does not economically justify the operation. In general
there are smaller local carriers operating between the normal
distribution terminals of the line-haul carriers and the particular
smaller points involved, performing a daily service. Also in
some instances one of the applicants performing an intensive
service in a particular area has been used in joint-line service
by other cagers with authority to serve the particular point in
question singte-line. It is reasoned that the public is served
better by interlining the freight to these local carriers who per-
form a daily service rather than holding it to accumulate a
sufficient volume to warrant single-line service. It is also
reasoned that this practice is “cneficial in enabling the local
carrier to have a sufficient volume of freight to maintain its
operations. Generally, the volume of traffic moving to or from
a point dictates the service which can be offered profitably.

We recognize that carriers must operate in an efficient and
practical manner in order to be able to provide a service capable
of meeting the transportation needs of the public generally.
The extent to which carriers may hold out to the public a
single-line service but render a joint-line service is not here
in issue. In the event authorized carriers are failing to perform
properly under their certificates and pursuant to the provisions
of the Interstate Commerce Act'! procedures other than au-
thorizing additional carrier services between the points are
available to remedy that situation. Nevertheless the evidence

14 49 U.S.C. 316(b).

per TSE ME ae

— 886 —

of this practice is relevant and is given consideration in reach-
ing our conclusions.

The key to applicants’ ability to perform and sustain the
services proposed for witnesses at many of the smaller towns
lies primarily in developing a volume of freight moving between
the major cities, namely between Atlanta and Birmingham in
the Southeast and Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Tulsa, and
Kansas City in the Southwest and Midwest. As has been noted
single-line services are now available between many points in
this area, particularly between the larger cities, and in addition
there are available many- connecting line services to meet the
needs of the shipping public, including the joint-line services
available between these applicants. To the extent the testimony
of the witnesses is based largely upon the proposition that to
the disregard of other considerations single-line service should
be made available to them we need only refer to the position

“of the Commission as siated in other cases that the national
transportation policy docs not tolerate the proposition that all
shippers at all points are entitled to single-line motor carrier
service.'* This is particularly true in a proceeding embracing
the extensive geographical area of these applications, both in-
dividually and collectively.

The evidence fails to establish a need for the additional
single-line services as proposed by the applicants, or any of
them, in these proceedings. Neither does it warrant the realign-
ment of traditional traffic patterns and competitive relationships
among the existing carrier services as may result from the
proposals. To the contrary, the conclusion is warranted that
the addition of more single-line services to transport small less-
than-truckload shipments between the smaller communities and
the production and distribution centers will result in dilution

1% Hancock Trucking, Inc. Ext.-—Gulf and West Coast Routes,
‘62 MAC. 313, 335. MN

Ay

— 887 —

of the freight available for the existing carriers and may ad-
versely affect the quality of services of all of the carriers now
operating in the area.

Pickup Service

An appreciable number of the witnesses supporting certain
applicants complain of poor pickup service by the motor car-
riers being used. These complaints embrace the applicant car-
riers as well as protestants and other carrier services. In some
instances their difficulties appear to result from their limited
dock facilities or their location in congested areas with little
or no space available for carriers to await their turn. These
difficult physical conditions require special handling. particu-
larly where unreasonable delay of the equipment and driver
may be involved or undesirable or unlawful traffic congestion
may result. Some shippers and carriers have solved this diffi-
culty by scheduling pickups as well as deliveries when such
conditions exist.

Some witnesses complain that certain carriers which serve
them have removed them from their regular daily pickup sched-
ules making it necessary to call the carriers for pickup. The evi-
dence discloses that the carriers normally make daily pickup
calls on their regular shippers, but if their service is being used
only sporadically, pickups are scheduled only upon a specific
call from the shipper. That practice appears adequate and
economically sound.

Some of the shippers complaining of unsatisfactory pickup
service by one carrier have adequate and satisfactory services
by other carriers which often are their preferred carrier serv-
ices. Some of these complaints are without substance, and
some involve isolated pickup failures which may occur to any
carrier. In some instances the complaining witness has an

eee ae ae

Pegs —s

— 888 —

early closing hour for his platform employees making it diffi-
cult to effect the pickup particularly if the call for service should
be late; and some of the witnesses complain of failure of their
carrier services to make more than one pickup a day at their
place of business.

Some of the complaints of poor pickup service really relate
to other basic difficulties the solution of which lies in pro-
cedures other than authorizing additional general freight car-
rier services as here proposed. For example, shippers of furni-
ture have complained that they have experienced difficulty in
getting general freight carriers to pick up their shipments es-
pecially when destined to off-line points. The carriers explain
their reluctance to pick up such shipments because of the diffi-
culty they experience in finding a connecting carrier willing to
accept the shipment for transportation to destination. Other
shippers of articles which may be regarded as somewhat un-
desirable freight experience difficulty in getting prompt pickups.
Often these difficulties can be overcome by cooperation between
the shippers and the carriers and an understandin if the prac-
tical problems involved in handling such freigh fal
shippers or receivers of such articles are enthusiastic supporters
of applicants who promise to give them a regular and consistent
scheduled service for their undesirable freight.

Unquestionably the record contains instances of poor pickup
service by both applicants and protestants. Some of it occurred
during a period when one of the protestants was merging into
it another carrier operating in the area here involved and con-
solidating the terminal facilities of the two carriers. In this
record the pickup service of the same carrier (including that
of both applicants and protestants) has been criticized as well
as praised by different witnesses. A number of the witnesses
testified that their pickup service improved after they com-
plained to the appropriate carrier officials. Their experience
suggests and warrants the conclusion that the existing carriers

— 889 —

4
are/not apathetic to the shortcomings of their services and are
responsive to the needs of the shippers as well as the exigencies
of competition.

Adverse Atfect on Existing Carrier Services

The interests Of existing carrier services must be carefully
considered in determining whether additional grants of operat-
ing authority are warranted. Normally existing carriers should
have an opportunity to show that they can render adequate
service and also the opportunity to transport all of the traf-
fic they can handle adequately and efficiently in the territory
they are authorized to serve without the competition of new
operations.*" While special circumstances at times may war-
rant departure from the norm as stated we find no reason here
for such departure. The existing carrier services have sub-
stantial investments in their motor carrier properties and have
increased their facilities and services with the growing needs of
shippers in the areas they serve. In some of the areas here
involved certain protestants have received additional operating

authority since the close of this hearing as we have noted -

The very serious adverse affect which these 10 extension ap-
plications collectively may have upon the existing carrier serv-
ices is noted in Appendix D. It is difficult to predict accu-
rately the effect that approval of any one of the applications
may have upon any single existing carrier, but the evidence leaves
little doubt that some of the smaller carriers likely could not sur-
vive if certain of the applications were granted. For example,
Holloway which receives 71 percent of its operating revenue
from one account that is here supporting one of the applicants
for service duplicating that of Holloway. is faced with a pos-

16 Eazor Exp. Inc. Extension—Alternate Routes, 89 M.C.C. 345.
351 (1961); Garrett Common Carrier Application, 83 M.C.C. 795.
798 (1960).

Sr 2 a

‘
4
3
é
és
a
}
‘7
de
4

fi NIRA AICI Lic LEIA NSARM OF ER

— 890 —

sible diversion to that applicant of all of its westbound and
most of its eastbound freight notwithstanding the admission
of the shipper that Holloway’s service is adequate and satis-
factory. The entire operations of Red Line would be seri-
ously threatened by the grant of these applications; in fact a
grant of the Strickland application alone could put Red Line
out of business. United, operating only between Atlanta and
Birmingham, is completely vulnerable to diversion.

Gordons’ traffic is exceedingly susceptible to diversion from
these applications as noted in Appendix D, page 21, including
virtually all of its traffic at certain of its terminals. Overall 54
percent of all shipments handled on its entire system in 1966
would be subject to diversion, representing 54.6 percent of its
tonnage and 58.5 percent of its operating revenue. Braswell's
operations threatened by these applications represent over 25
percent of its tonnage producing about 16 percent of its operat-
ing revenue ($1.98 million). Fifty-two percent of the combined
revenues of Jack Cole and Dixie are involved in these proceed-
ings as are 12 to 14 percent of the operating revenucs of MR&R.
A major portion of the freight handled by Campbell Sixty-Six

would be subject to diversion including freight moving to or
from each of its terminals.

Further reviewing Appendix D it will be observed that Ryder’s
operations (not including those of Harris) subject to diversion
represent approximately $7.5 million of its revenue per year;
Transcon approximately $13 million; Herrin $2.7 million;
Mason & Dixon $2 million; Viking $2.8 million; Watson-
Wilson $1 million; Consolidated Freightways $1.9 million;
T.I.M.E. $8 million; ABF $1.6 million: Eagle $1 million:
Deaton $3 million; and Floyd & Beasley and Southwestern
Transportation about $215,000 each. Approximately 8 percent
of Roadway’s total shipments are subject to diversion by these
applications and a large portion of the interline freight of Pilot
at its Atlanta terminal would be affected. The evidence shows

- $91 —

that from 200,000 to 300,000 pounds of freight transported
daily by GFA is subject to, diversion. Approximately 18 million
pounds of the freight handled by Mercury Freight in 1966
would be subject to diversion as would over 36 million pounds
handled by A&H and 270 million pounds by ETMF. Other
trucking companies ustimate possible diversion of their freight
by these applications as follows: Ellis Trucking Co. 2 million
pounds per month; Southern Forwarding Co. 168,000 pounds
per month; Mid-South Transports over 100,000 pounds per
month; ET&WNC approximately 24 million pounds per year,
Mercury MX approximately 3.5 percent of its operating reve-
nue: Mercury Motors approximately $23,000 in revenue per
year, and Wilkerson Freight Lines from 45 to 60 percent of its
total freight. Other protesting carriers have freight subject to
diversion which is important to their operations.

Not only is the possible diversion of such large quantities of
freight posed by these applications but they also involve pos-
sible adverse affects through a further imbalancing of the traffic
flow of these carriers. While the evidence does indicate a few
isolated areas involved in these applications where a grant of
a particular application may not seriously affect the existing
carrier services, it cannot be found as to those areas that the
proposed additional services are required by the present or
future public convenience and necessity. e

The overall affect of these 10 applications upon the existing
carrier services is reflected by an opening statement of counsel
on behalf of two of the applicants noting that these applications
propose significant alterations in the interline relationships
among carriers, in competition for existing traffic, and in the
pattern of motor carrier service in the South and Southeast.
The granting of any or all of the applications will affect (1) serv-
ice to the public in a broad and economically important area
of the country, and (2) the efficiency and economy of the motor
carrier operations conducted by applicants and other carriers

Seay "es

2% A Ree shows
assets aggregating $3.8 million, including current assets of $1.9
million. Current liabilities were $838,254. Its capital account

of $1.69 million consists of $141,600 in capital stock and $1.55

million retained earnings. For the eleven month period end-
ing November 30, 1965, Deaton’s operating revenues were $8.8
million. Its net income before provision for income tax was
$934,147. and after, $546,946.

Deaton’s annual reports of revenues and statistics for 1967
and 1968 filed with the Commission reflect operating revenues
of $10,758,227 and $11,584,817, respectively.

ee

~

|

Appendix A-5

FLOYD & BEASLEY TRANSFER COMPANY. INC.
SYCAMORE. ALA.

No. MC-18088 (Sub-No. 36)

Apphcation Filed: May 18. 1965

Authority Sought:

General commodities (except those of unusual value. classes
A and'B explosives. livestock, household goods as defined
by the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those re-

quiring special equipment:
(1) Between Atlanta, Ga. and Fort Worth, Tex.:

Ekrom Atlanta over UL. S. Highway 78 to Birming-
ham. Ala.. thence over U. S. Highway 1] to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 80. thence overt U. S. Highway
40 to Monroe. La., thence over Interstate Highway
2%) to Shreveport. La., thence over U. S. Highway
&() to Fort Worth, and return over the same route.
Intermediate and off-route points: Monroe and
Shreveport. La.. Dallas, Tex., and points within 10
miles of Dallas and those within 10 miles of Fort
Worth. |

(2) Between Atlanta, Ga., and Houston, Tex.:

From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 29 to Opelika,
Ala. thence over Interstate Highway 85 to Mont-
gomery, Ala. (also from Opelika over U. S. Highway
29 to junction U. S. Highway 80. thence over U. S.
Highway 80 to Montgomery), thence over U. S. High-
way 31 to Mobile, Ala. thence over U. S. Highway
YQ to junction U. S. Highway 190, thence over U. S.

(3)

(4)

(5)

05

Highway 190 to junction U. S. Highway 165 at
Kinder, La., thence over U. S. Highway 165 to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 90 at Iowa, La.. thence over
U. S. Highway 90 to Houston, and return over the
“Same route.

Intermediate and off-route points: Baton Rouge and
Lake Charles, La., Orange, Beaumont and Texas
City, Tex., and those within 10 miles of Houston.

its

Between Montgomery, Ala., and junction U. S. High-
ways 11 and 80 near Cuba, Ala., over U. S. Highway
80, for purpose of joinder only, serving no intermediate
points.

Between junction of U. S. Highways 71 and 190 west
of Baton Rouge, La., and Shreveport, La., over U. S.
Highway 71, for purpose of joinder only, serving no
intermediate points.

Between junction U. S. Highway 78 and Alabama
Highway 21 near Anniston, Ala., and the junction of
U. S. Highways 231 and 80 near Montgomery, Ala.,
for purpose of joinder with applicant's irregular-route
operations:

From junction U. S. Highway 78 and Alabama High-
way 21 over Alabama Highway 21 to junction U. S.
Highway 231, thence over U. S. Highway 231 to
junction U. S. Highway 80, and return over the
same route, serving the intermediate point of Syca-
more.

Restriction: Restricted to traffic moving between points
east of the Mississippi River except Baton Rouge,
La., on the one hand, and, on the other, points west of
the Mississippi River and Baton Rouge.

— 925 —

« Present Authority:

Floyd & Beasley is.a regular and irregular route common
carrier of general and specific commodities—the latter being
predominantly textile machinery and textile products—in the
States of Alabama. Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Its
authority to transport general commodities includes transporta-
tion from Atlanta. Ga.. Chattanooga. Tenn.. and all points in
South Carolina to Birmingham, Ala. The authority to trans-
port textile products includes service from 54 /abama points
to points in Alabama. Tennessee. Georgia and South. Carolina.

Seventy-five percent of Floyd & Beasley's traflic ‘consists of
textile products and the remainder is of general commodities.
Approximately SO percent of its traffic is connecting line freight.

_14-

d. Motor Vehicle Equipment:

(1) Present
Tractors—101
Trailers—208
Pickup and
delivery —25

e. Terminal Facilities: >
ww
Present —Six terminals located at Atlanta, Ga.,

Greenville, S. C., Chattanooga, Tenn.. Bir-
mingham, Sycamore and Lanett, Ala.

Proposed—Proposes to establish terminals at Baton
Rouge, Lake Charles, Monroe, and Shreve-
port, La., Beaumont. Dallas, Fort Worth,
Houston, Orange. and Texas City, Tex.

om

— 926 —

f. Financial Data:

Floyd & Beasley’s balance sheet as of December 31, 1965,
shows assets aggregating $2.64 million, including current assets
of $1. million. Current liabilities were $278,246. Its capital
account shows a net worth of $920,018 consisting of capital
stock $80,000, and earned surplus $840,018. For the year
1967 its operating revenues totaled $3.7 million. Net income
before. provisions for income taxes was $181,309, and after
$150,672. For the year 1968 its operating revenues totaled
$4.3 million.

215

Appendix A-6—

STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.
DALLAS, TEX.

No. MC-59680 (Sub-No. 147)
a. Application Filed: June 16, 1965

b. Authority Sought:

.

General commodities (except those of unusual value,
classes A and B explosives, household goods as defined by
the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those requiring
special equipment):
(1) Between Atlanta, Ga., and Texarkana, Ark.:
From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 78 tq Birmingham,
Ala., thence over U. S. Highway 11 to junction U. S.
Highway 82, thence over U. S. Highway 82 to Tex-
arkana, and return over the same route.
Intermediate points: Birmingham, Ala.. Greenville,
Miss., and those on U. S. Highway &2 Tn Arkansas.

2007 =

(2) Between Atlanta. Ga.. and Shreveport, La.:

From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 78 to Birmingham,
Ala.. thence over U. S. Highway 11 to junction U. S.
Highway 80. thence over U. S. Highway 80 to Shreve-
port, and return over the same route.

Intermediate point: Jackson, Miss.

Joinder point: Monroe, La.

¢. Present Authority:

Strickland is a regular route common carrier of general com-
modities operating over a network of routes extending from the
Southwest to the midwest and northeast portions of the United
States. More particularly, the routes in the Southwest embrace
portions of Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas and extend to such
major cities as Memphis. St. Louis, Milwaukee. Racine, Ke-
nosha. Aurora, Joliet, Chicago. South Bend, Detroit, Cleveland,
Philadelphia. Camden, Atlantic City, South Kearny. New York.
Bridgeport. Orange. New Haven, Hartford. Springfield and
Boston.

-16-

By the proposed additional routes Strickland would add serv-
ice between Atlanta, Birmingham, and Jackson, on the one hand,
and, on the other. presently authorized service points in Arkan-
sas. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, via Monroe and Shreve-
port, La., and Texarkana, Tex. Strickland is of the opinion
that route circuity would make impractical the use of the addi-
tional routes in connection with Strickland’s service to or from.
Memphis and its points north and east thereof.

d. Motor Vehicle Equipment:

(1) Present
Tractors (Road )—207
Trailers (Road )—787

— 928 —

City pickup trucks—190
City pickup tractors—251

City pickup trailers—261

e. Terminal Facilities:

Present—36 located throughout system including terminals
at Dallas, Houston, Memphis, Shreveport, New Or-
leans, Monroe, San Antonio and Texarkana.

Proposed—4 additional terminals at Atlanta, Birmingham,
Jackson, and Greenville.

f. Financial Data:

Strickland’s balance sheet as of December 31, 1965, shows
assets aggregating $11.3 million, including current assets of $2.7
million. Current liabilities also were $2.7 million. Its capital
stock and surplus totaled $4.35 million. In 1965 Strickland’s
operating revenues were $30.3 million with a net income, be-
fore provision for income taxes, of $550,632, and after, $320,-
428.

Strickland’s 1967 and 1968 annual reports of revenues and
statistics filed with the Commission reflect operating revenues
of $28,065,709 and $33,880,723, respectively.

“ids

—- 929 —
Appendix A-7

BAGGETT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
BIRMINGHAM. ALA.

No. MC-76177 (Sub-No. 304)
:. Application Filed: July 30. 1965
bh. Authority Sought:

General commodities (except those of unusual valuc. classes
A and B explosives, blasting supplies, household goods as
defined by the Commission. commodities in bulk. and
those requiring special equipment):

(1) Between Atlanta, Ga.. and Forth Worth, Tex

From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 29 to junction
U.S. Highway 8&0 (near Tuskegee. Ala.) thence over
U.S. Highway 80 to Montgomery. Ala. (also from
Atlanta over Interstate Highway 85 to Montgomery).
thence over U. S. Highway 80 to Fort Worth. and
return over the same route.

Intermediate and off-route points: Montgomery and
Selma. Ala.. Dallas, Tex., those within 15 miles of
Dallas. and those within 15 miles of Fort Worth.

(2) Between Birmingham, Ala., and Fort Worth. Tex.:

From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 11 to junction
U. S. Highway 80 (near Cuba, Ala.) thence over
U. S. Highway 80 to Fort Worth, and return over the
same route.

Intermediate point: Tuscaloosa, Ala.

Ps ee pi 8 e990

— 930 —

(3) Between Montgomery, Ala., and Houston, Tex.:

From Montgomery over U. S. Highway 31 to Mobile,
Ala. (also from Montgomery over Interstate Highway
65 to Mobile), thence over U. S. Highway 90 to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 190, thence over U. S. Highway
190 via Baton Rouge to Kinder, La., thence over
U. S. Highway 165 to the junction of U. S. Highway
90 at Iowa, La., thence over U. S. Highway 90 to
Houston, and return over the same _ route.

-18-

Intermediate and _ off-route points: Mobile, Ala..
Beaumont, Port Arthur, Smith’s Bluff, Texas City.
and those within 15 miles of Houston.

(4) Between the junction of U. S. Highways 190 and 71
west of Baton Rouge, La., and Shreveport. La., over
U. S. Highway 71, serving no intermediate points, for
purpose of joinder only.

(5) Between Meridian, Miss., and the junction of U. S.
Highways 11 and 190 near Slidell, La., over U. S. High-
way 11, serving no intermediate points, for purpose of
joinder only.

c. Present Authority:

Baggett holds authority as a common carrier of general
commodities (with exceptions) over regular and irregular routes.,,
The regular routes extend generally between the terminal points
of Chattanooga, Tenn., Rome, Atlanta, and Columbus, Ga.,
Florence, Decatur, Birmingham, Montgomery and Mobile, Ala.,
and New Orleans, La. Over irregular routes its authority. em-
braces the transportation of general commodities from Mont-
gomery to points in Alabama within 125 miles of Montgomery
and of specified commodities in a rather extensive area. In

4 oe

addition Baggett is engaged in the transportation of explosives
from and to points and areas in 44 States including Alabama,
Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas.
Baggett Bulk Transport, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, and
Alabama Highway Express, Inc.. a carrier controlled by Bag-
gett, also are engaged in the transportation of property in inter-
state commerce.

d. Motor Vehicle Equipment:
(1) Present
City trucks and tractors—272
Road tractors—-334
Trailers—750 (including open tops. beam racks, side
doors. atomic energy, temperature control, and
dry freight vans)
(2) Proposed
Equipment adequate for present.

-19-

e. Terminal Facilities:

Present-—20, located in Georgia (3), Tennessee (1).
Mississippi (1), Louisiana (1), Alabama (14).

Proposed—3 additional terminals at Dallas-Fort
Worth, Houston, and Beaumont.

f. Financial Data:

Baggett’s balance sheet as of December 31, 1965, shows as-
sets aggregating $7.5 million, including current assets of $2.5
million. Current liabilities were $1.3 million. Its capital stock
($144,000) and earned surplus reflect a net worth of $2.6 mil-
lion. In 1965 Baggett’s operating revenues were about $11 mil-

pene LOM ae CA Mace

— 932 —

lion with a net before provision for income taxes of $134,841,
and after such provision of $129,469.

Baggett’s 1967 and 1968 annual reports of revenues and

- statistics filed with the Commission reflect operating revenues
~ of $14,056,881 and $14,113,906, respectively.

- 20 -

: Appendix A-8

BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INC.
General Office: Principal Terminal:
EAST GADSDEN, ALA. ATLANTA, GA.

No. MC-94201 (Sub-No. 56)

a. Application Filed: July 12, 1965

b. Authority Sought:

General commodities (except those of unusual value, classes.
A and B explosives, household goods as defined by the
Commission in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of
Household Goods, 17 M.C.C. 46% commodities in bulk,
commodities requiring special equipment and those in-
jurious or contaminating to other lading):

(1) Between Birmingham, Ala., and Houston, Tex.:

(a) From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 31 (also
over Interstate Highway 65) to Atmore, Ala., thence
over, Alabama Highway 21 to the Alabama-Florida
State line, thence over Florida Highway 97 to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 29, thence over U. S. Highway
29 to Pensacola, Fla., thence over U. S. Highway

kee .

4

90 to New Orleans. La.. thence over U. S. Highway
61 to Baton Rouge. La.. thence over U. S. Highway.
190 to Kinder. La.. thence over U. S. Highway 165
to junction U. S/Highway 90) (also Interstate Highway
10). thence over LU. S. Highway 90 (also over Inter-
state Highway 10) to Houston and return over the
same route, serving the intermediate points of Pensa:
cola. Fla.. Mobile. Ala.. Grand Isle, Lockport and
Golden Meadow, La.. Pascagoula and Moss Point,
_ Miss.. New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Lake Charles,
La.. and Orange and Beaumont, Tex.. and the off-
route points of Port Arthur, Baytown and Texas City,
Tex.. and those off-route points within a 15 mile
radius of Birmingham and Mobile, Ala.. Pensacola,
Fla.. New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Lake Charles.
La.. and Port Arthur. Beaumont and Houston. Tex.:

ot.

—

(b) From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 11 (also
over Interstate Highway 59) to New Orleans, ee
thence over U. S. Highway 61 to Baton Rouge. La.,
thence over U. S. Highway 190 to Kinder, La.. thence
over U. S. Highway 165 to junction U. S. Highway
90 (also Interstate Highway 10). thence over U. S.
Highway 90 (also Interstate Highway 10) to Houston,
and return over the same route, serving the inter-
mediate points of Meridian, Laurel and Hattiesburg.
Miss., and those off-route points within a 15 mile
radius of Birmingham, Ala., New Orleans, Baton
Rouge and Lake Charles. La.. Port Arthur. Beau-
mont, and Houston, Tex., and Hattiesburg and Meri-
dian, Miss.

(2) Between Brewton. Ala.. and Pensacola. Fla.:

— 934 —

Over U. S. Highway 29, serving no intermediate
points, as an alternate route for operating conveni-
ence only.

(3) Between Birmingham, Ala.. and Mobile, Ala.:

From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 11 to Bucks-
ville, Ala., thence over Alabama Highway 5S to Thom
asville, Ala., thence over U. S. Highway 43 to Mobile
and return over the same route, serving no intermedi-
ate points, as an alternate route for operating con-
venience only.

(4) Between Poplarville, Miss., and Baton Rouge, La.:

From Poplarville over Mississippi Highway 26 to the
Mississippi-Louisiana State line. thence over Louisi-
ana Highway 10 to Bogalusa, La., thence over Lout-
siana Highway 21 to Covington, La. thence over
U.S Highway 190 to Baton Rouge and return over
the same route, serving no intermediate points, as an
alternate route for operating convenience only.

(5) Between Montgomery, Ala., and junction U. S. High-
ways 11, 80, and Interstate Highway 59:

Over U. S. Highway 80; serving all intermediate
points.
ry ae

(6) Between Birmingham, Ala., and Fort Worth, Tex.:

(a) From Birmingham over.U. S. Highway 11 (also
over Interstate Highway 20) to Meridian, Miss.,
thence over U. S. Highway 80 (also over Interstate
Highway 20) to Fort Worth and return over the
same route, serving the intermediate points of Meri-
dian, Jackson, and Vicksburg, Miss., Monroe, Ruston
and Shreveport, La., and Marshall, Gladewater, Long-

Oe SP a

— 935 —

view and Dallas, Tex.. and those off-route points
within 15 mile radius of Birmingham. Ala.. Fort
Worth. Tex.. and Meridian, Jackson and Vicksburg.
Miss.;

(b) From Birmingham over U. S. Highway I] to
junction U. S. Highway 82. thence over U. S. High-
way 82 to Texarkana, Tex.-Ark.. thence over U. S.
Highway 67 (also over Interstate Highway 30) to
Dallas, Tex., thence over U. S. Highway 80 to Fort
Worth and return over the same route, serving the
intermediate points of Columbus, Greenwood and
Greenville, Miss., El] Dorado and Crosset, Ark., Téx-
arkana, Tex.-Ark., and Greenville and Dailas, Tex.,
and the off-route points of Plano and Garland, Tex.,
and Camden, Ark., and those off-route points within
a 15 mile radius of Birmingham, Ala., Dallas and
Fort Worth, Tex., Texarkana, Tex.-Ark., Columbus,
Greenwood and Greenville, Miss.

=

(7) Between Birmingham, Ala., and Topeka, Kans.:

From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 78 to Mem-
phis. Tenn.; thence over U. S. Highway 70 to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 63 (also Interstate Highway 55),
thence over U. S. Highway 63 to junction U. S. High-
way 60 at Cabool, Mo., thence over U. S. Highway
60 to Springfield, Mo., thence over U. S. Highway
66 to Carthage, Mo.; thence over U. S. Highway 71
to Kansas City, Mo., thence over Interstate High-
way 70 to Topeka and return over the same route,
serving the intermediate points of Memphis, Tenn.,
Jonesboro and West Memphis, Ark., Springfield and
Carthage, Mo., and Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., and
those off-route points within a,15 mile radius of
Birmingham, Ala., and Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., and
Springfield, Mo.
Pay

id

— 936 —

(8) Between Memphis, Tenn., and Little Rock, Ark.:

From Memphis over U. S. Highway 70 to West Mem-
phis, Ark., thence over Interstate Highway 40 to Lit-
tlhe Rock, and retum over the same route. serving
off-route points within a TS mile radius of Littie Rock,
Ark.

(9) Between West Memphis. Ark.. and Litthe Rock. Ark.

From West Memphis over U. S. Highway 70 (also
over Interstate Highway 40) to Little Rock, Ark.,
serving off-route points within a 1S mile radius ot
Littie Rock, Ark.

(10) Between Little Rock, Ark.. and Greenville. Miss.:

From Little Rock over U. S. Highway 65 to junction
U.S. Highway S2°> near Lake Village. Ark. thence
over U.S. Highway 82 to Greenville and return over
the same route, serving no intermediate pots, as an
alternate route for operating convenience only.

(11) Between Houston, Tex., and Dallas, Tex.:

Over U. S. Highway 75 (also over Interstate Highway
45), serving no intermediate points, as an alternate
route for Operating convenience only.

(12) Between Little Rock, Ark., and Texarkana, Tex.:

Over Interstate Highway 30 (also over U. S. Highway
67), serving no intermediate points, as an alternate
route for operating convenience only.

Restrictions:

(a) Restricted to service on traffic moving from, to,
or through Birmingham, Ala., Mobile, Ala., Pensa-
cola, Fla., or Memphis, Tenn.

=
Rushin Upholstery Spl.

Weldon Williams Lick

' Bryan Infants Wear

Rangaire Corp.
Bunte Candy Co., Inc.

Textiles, Inc., Threads, Inc.

Pyramid Rubber Co.

- Avco-Bay St. Abrasive

U S Stoneware, Inc.
Proctor Silex Corp.
Tupperware Co.

Application
Supported

BO
JT
S
RB
JT

BO
RB
JT
JT
JT

a al

882
883

Witness ~
Name

Turner, B W
Hussnatter, A

- Devine, H T

Templar, D L
Cole, L B

Loreto, A
Novak, J L
Saunders, AA
Socha, H
McKinney, JR

Shue, P J
Fast, G L
Macon, T G
Page. J G
Miller, JR

Morgan, J P
Noerr, DG
Razook, T
Soforenko; I §
Crooks, § C

Lloyd; G H

Barber, GE
Sweed, A T

TT coc

Company
Name

Std. Cap & Molding.
Monsanto Co.
Magla Products, Inc.
Westbend Co.
Marks Handkerchief

Deluxe Topper Corp.
Omack Inds.
Benson-Saunders Spec.
Phillip Morris, Inc.
Texize Chemicals, Inc.

Pennsylvania Dutch Co.
Brown Co.

Sou Press & Filter
McNeil Labs., Inc.
Tokheim Corp. o

Kenosha Auto Transpt.
Noerr Motor Frt., Inc.
Louis Hand, Inc.
Carol Wire & Cable
Collyer Insul. Wire Co.

Harry & Lloyd, Consultants
Lite Control-Corp.

Wallace Candy Co.
Schrafft’s Candy Co.
General Whlse Sply Co.
Sharon Bolt & Screw
Dynamics, Inc.

. ae

Natl. Sponge Cushion
Foxboro Co.

Application
Supported

BO, JM
RE
BO, JM
BO
BO

BO, JM
JM
RE

JM

a arinsn oneataieaaeadiameandiaaianamiaa

Wit-
ness
No.

884
885

886
887
888
889
890

891
892
893
894
895

896
897
898
899
900

901
902
903

904

905

906
907
908
909
910

911
912

Witness
Name

Deaver, F E
Finger, AE

Fair, SJ
Cohen, M J
Locks, DM
Bruens, A J
Robishaw, W H

McBrearty, C K

‘Conway, J F

Cleckley, J
Burbury, H
Leslie, C P

Gerard, W C
Goodman, R
Dickinson, DO H
Sutt, E

Eastman, K

.
Copas, J W
Van Oort, M J
Pierce, W E

Loubriel, J
Liddell, WA

Park, MT
Baird, H
Beaver, HD
McGloshen, O V
Cunningham, H

Myers, WG
Myers, Woodrow

— 978 —

Company
Name

Moore Handley, Inc.
Nashua Corp.

Allis Chalmers Co.
Spartan Dept. Stores

Richmond Engr. Co., Inc.

Rockwell Mfg. Co.
B.1.F. Industries

Dennis Mitchell Inds.
Dunham-Bush, Inc.
Pyle-National Co.
Pyle-National Co.
Warmer-Chilcott Div.

Congoleum Nanin, Inc.
Meridian Mfg. Co.
Standard Hardware Co.
Colgate-Palmolive Co.
Yankee Distributors

Dymo Products Co., Inc.

Hart & Cooley Mfg. Co.
Dapol Plastics, Inc.
Worcester Toy Co., Inc.
Orangeburg Mfg. Co.
Liddell Co.

Bearings & Trans Sply
Ingalls Shipbuilding
Revere Copper & Brass
Continental Mtrs. Corp.
Goodyear Tire & Rbr

Kinney Shoe Corp.
Gamlen Chem. Corp.

Application
Supported

BO
JM

BO

RE

BO, JM

BO, JM

BO, RE

Wit-
ness
No.

913
914

915
916
917
918

919
920

921
922
923
924
925

926
927

928
929
930

931
932
933

Witness
Name

Deangelis, J F
Marsh, V M

Morrison, C R

Green, RE

— 979 —

Company
Name

Max Eckardt & Sons
Baltimore Paint & Chm.
Synkloid Co. of Fla.
Koppers Co., Inc.

United Chair, Inc.

Wigglesworth, JG McCrory McClellan Gm

Misener, J

Carlson, HR
Bacher, F J

Helm, DS

- Thomas, F W

Mickens, E F
Parker, A
Darsitano, R §

Babcock, J D
Gloster, G J

Schmidt, M R
Johnston, H R
Talbot, CO

Bondura, R L
Vaughan, MR
Powell, C K

Foster Milerburn Co.

-23-

Monroe Intl., Inc.
Arrow Co.

Continental Copper
Republic Steel Corp.
Becton Dickinson
Claxton Bakery, Inc.
Wall Rope Works

Berkshire Hathaway
P Lorillard Co., Inc.
Usen Products Co. .
P Lorillard Co., Inc.
Westinghouse Elec.
General Box Co.

A B Murray Co.
U S Plywood Corp.
Powell Truck Line
Holt Truck Line

Application
Supported

JM
BO, JM

RE

| iain rat

— 980 —

APPENDIX C

Testimony of Public Witnesses Supporting
the Applications

Clothing

Thirty-three of the witnesses who ship or receive clothing
within the area involved in these applications testified support-
ing, in the aggregate, all of the applications except that of
Deaton. Some of the witnesses support more than one applica-
tion. Ten were called by Bowman and that carrie, nad the sup-
port of 16 of the witnesses; Red B2% called 6 and was sup-
ported by 7; Johnson 4 and was supported by 16; Herrin also
called 4 and was supported by 5; Jones, Strickland, Roadway
and Floyd & Beasley all called 2 witnesses each and were sup-
ported by 5, 4, 3, and 2 witnesses, respectively; and Baggett
was supported by the | witness it called.

Eight witnesses testified with respect to their need for trans-
portation service from manufacturers, warehouses, or suppliers
of clothing at Atlanta to points or areas within Mississippi,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri and Memphis, Tenn.;
and another from Birmingham to Texas, Louisiana and Missis-
sippi points.’ In the aggregate these nine witnesses support
the applications of Herrin, Roadway, Red Ball, Strickland, Bow-
man, Johnson and Jones. From Atlanta they were presently
usin&’ the services of Johnson, Bowman, Deaton, Roadway,
Ryder, Dixie, Jack Cole, ETMF, T.I.M.E., Gordons, Transcon
and Georgia-Highway Express. From Birmingham most of the’
same carriers were used and in addition, Campbell Sixty-Six.
Some of the witnesses complain that the existing services, in-
cluding those of applicants, are too slow and inconsistent, and |

—S

1 Witnesses Nos. 6, 36, 49, 146, 148, 154, 272, 743 and 920.

~~

— 981 —

that at times pickups are slow and tracing shipments is difficult.
Other of these .witnesses. praise the existing services including
those of both the applicants and protestants, and including both
single and joint-line service. These nine companies ship or

‘receive approximately 800,000 pounds of freight per month

within the area noted, much of which is in small shipments of
100 pounds or ‘less. Rush shipments often are sent by bus,
parcel delivery service, or parcel post, depending upon the
nature of the emergency and the rate-break weight involved in
connection with motor

= ae

common carrier service. There is no indication at all of the lack
of transportation services available to these shippers. Essentially

they express preference for single-line service to a maximum

number of points within the area as'a means of eliminating
time lost through interline, and minimizing tracing and claim
problems.

Six of these witnesses testified concerning their need for
service from South Carolina points (Seneca, Mauldin, Chester,
Belton, Easley) and from Landis, N. C., and another with re-
spect to his need for service from Mayoden, N. C., on traffic
moving to Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri
and Kansas points.* Their testimony also relates to approxi-
mately 800,000 pounds of freight per month shipped from these
origins.

The shipper at Seneca is served by a number of motor car-
riers. It now uses Ryder on approximately 50 percent of its
freight going to Louisiana and Texas points and often uses
joint-line services where single line is available as a matter of
convenience in moving its freight from its shipping platform.
The Mauldin shipper also at times uses joint-line services rather

~ Witness Nos. 64, 88, 424, 460, 629, 632, 554.

— 982 —

~ than the single-line services of Roadway or Ryder. It has not

used the respective joint-line services of the applicants it sup-
ports. Each of these six shippers is served by a number of motor
carriers. They support in the aggregate the applications of Bow-
man, Johnson, Roadway and Floyd & Beasley. Some have not
used the services of the applicants supported, although they are
authorized to originate their shipments, while others have used

* such services and found them satisfactory. Their main com-

plaint of the existing service is that the transit time is slow. Two
of the shippers also complain that Ryder and Roadway have
failed to give a satisfactory service for pickup of their freight,
have expressed no interest in handling their freight, and in
fact have suggested that they use other services.

There is conflicting testimony with respect to the shipper at
Chester. This shipper formeriy depended upon Roadway as its
primary carrier to the extent of about 150,000 pounds of freight
per month. The witness complained that Roadway discontinued
serving the Chester plant on the ground that its imbalance of
freight made it impractical to furnish the equipment necessary
for the volume of freight involved. The discontinuance of this
service necessitated a complete rescheduling of

= e

Cafrier services to its distribution area. The Roadway witness
on the other hand claims that it was the shipper who discon-
tinued using Roadway’s service from the Chester plant because
of some pickups made after the shipper’s 3:00 p.m. deadline,
and that Roadway has tried to recapture the freight. According
to the Roadway witness this particular company is a valued
account having used the Roadway service from both its Cleve
land, Ohio and Chester, S. C., plants to the extent of approxi-
mately 2.7 million pounds of freight annually, two-thirds of
which originates at the Chester facility.

— 983 —

The witness from Mayoden is supporting the Roadway appli-

cation for single-line service to New Orleans and the Gulf area .

although it now has numerous joint-line services available in-
cluding that of Roadway, as well as some single-line service.
The shippers at Belton, Easley and Landis supporting the Bow-
man and Johnson Motor Lines applicatious now use Bowman
as the origin carrier for a large portion of their freight to the
area here involved; but along with the other witnesses they urge
that single-line service schedules as proposed by these respective
applicants will result in improved transit time and better overall
transportation service.

Five merchants maintaining stores at Shreveport, La., Flores-
ville, Tex., Oklahoma City, Dallas and West Monroe, La., tes-
tified that they need faster and more consistent transportation
service for the receipt of their merchandise.* In the aggregate
they receive about 14,000 pounds of freight per month. Four
of them receive the bulk of their merchandise from manufac-
turers in the southeastern States much of which is routed
through Atlanta. They have used the services of various origin
carriers including Roadway, Bowman, Johnson, Ryder, Over-
nite, Transcon, and T.I.M.E. To some of the destinations there
is a single-line service, but for the most part the transportation
involves joint-line service, breaking over Atlanta, Memphis or
Nashville. Two of these shippers support the proposed services
of Strickland from Atlanta to Shreveport and to San Antonio
(for further interline to Floresville); one supports the applica;
tion of Herrin from Atlanta to Dallas and one that of Jones from
Atlanta to Oklahoma City. The fifth merchant receives his
merchandise from various points in Massachusetts,.New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the Carolinas and Tennessee, and
he supports the applications of both Bowman and Johnson to
extend their present services to West Monroe. In the

oe

> Witness Nos. 316, 416, 533. 589 and 849.

AN

4°

VE PCRAD ALLENS IGOP LENT AL I

t Witness Nos. 349, 432, 524, 758, 825, 832.

1027

and points beyond; also (along with the Bowman application )
from Bessemer, Ala., to West Monroe, La., Pensacola, Fla.,
Houston, Memphis, and several points in Mississippi and Arkan-
sas; and from Chicago to Bessemer.*® Between Tulsa, Birming-
ham, and

=31:

Atlanta, the witnesses use the single-line service of Transcon or
T.I.M.E.; also the joint-line services of Campbell Sixty-Six or
Gordons as originating carriers and Jones as delivering carrier
for service from Atlanta and Birmingham to Tulsa. Other joint-
line services are available. From Bessemer the witness uses
ETMF, Mercury Freight, Campbell Sixty-Six, West, Ryder,
Bowman, and Roadway. The Bessemer witness requires open-
top equipment for some shipments and finds that such equip-
ment is not always immediately available upon demand. The
witnesses complain of shipping delays or slow transit time. Ap-
proximately 75.000 pounds of freight monthly is involved in the
testimony of these witnesses.

The Roadway application is supported for service from At-
lanta, Stowe, Pa., and Barberton, Ohio to points along the Gulf
Coast area proposed to be served by Roadway.'* Over 300,000
pounds of freight monthly is involved. These witnesses have
available and are using a large number of motor carrier services.
The Atlanta shipper has only one loading door and complains
that when the pickup carriers fail to adhere to his schedule
of pickups it causes congestion and blockage of his produc-
tion line. The Barberton shipper has both single-and joint-line
services available and uses both. He complains of slow transit
time. His transit time study shows a 4th day or better delivery
on about 54 percent of the shipments to Louisiana points but
it does not include any shipments handled by Roadway and its

'* Witness Nos. 674, 755, 806.
‘+ Witness Nos. 185, 220, 561.

— 1023 —

connections. The Stowe shipper accumulates freight for specific
areas until there Is a sufficient quantity to warrant making the
shipment. He too has a number of joint-line carrier services
available, some of which he has not tried. He had considered
his service satisfactory until checking out his transit time for
purposes of this hearing. He wants a single-line, faster transit

service.

The Strickland application 1s supported for service from
Houston to El Dorado and Fort Smith, Ark., Jackson and Green-
ville. Miss.. Birmingham, Atlanta and Tampa, and from Dallas
(Plano) to points in Mississippl, Alabama and Georgia; those of
Bowman and Johnson are supported for service from Hoyston
and Baton Rouge to Pensacola and from Thomasville and Char-
lotte. N. C., to Dallas*>

~32-

Approximately 130,000 pounds of freight monthly is involved.
The Dallas shipper supporting the Strickland application, who
now uses Strickland and its connections. complains that Red
Ball discontinued its daily call for pickup and now requires a
specific request for service, and that Mercury Freight, Transcom
and Gordons do not serve the plant directly. The Houston
shippers, who use a number of different carrier services, com-
plain of late pickups by some carriers and of slow transit time.
They do not know whether the carrier services they use are
joint-line or single-line, and have made no investigation as to the
single-line services available to specific points. The other wit-
nesses have not tried a number of joint-line services available
preferring to use the single-line service and avoid interlining
delays. Similarly, although complaining of slow transit time
between Dallas and Thomasville, N. C., the witness for that
service prefers to continue with the single-line service being used
rather than try the numerous joint-line services available.

‘Ss Witness Nos. 250, 383, 491. 503, 645.

— 1024 —

The remaining three witnesses support respectively the Deaton
application for service from Atlanta to Baton Rouge, Monroe,
and Shreveport, those of kierrin, Johnson, Bowman and Strick-
land for service from Nacogdoches to Atlanta, and the Herrin
application for service from Opelousas, La., to points in Missis-
sippi, Alabama. Georgia and Florida.*” The Deaton witness 1s
using the service of Johnson and its connections over the New
Orleans gateway. Ryder does not salicit his business and he
has not used the single-line service of that carrier to these points
in the past six months. He wants single-line service and faster
transportation for his shipments. On the shipments from Nacog-
doches to Atlanta, Red Ball is the originating carrier with vari-
ous connections used over the Shreveport and Memphis gate-

_ ways. The witness has not used Herrin’s present joint-line service.

While he wants Herrin’s single-line service, his support of
the Johnson, Bowman and Strickland applications ty for their
proposed joint-line services. The Opelousas witness repressiits
a new business. He uses the daily pickup service of Herrin and
supports its application for extension of its authority. He com-
plains that both Red Ball and Ryder have failed to make any
pickups at the plant in the 8 weeks he has been with the com-
pany. He is using Herrin’s joint-line service to points Red Ball
or Ryder could make in single-line service as he finds Herrin to
be a dependable carrier. He ships regularly once or twice a
week to his Atlanta warehouse. Herrin now has authority to
serve Atlanta by way of Macon.

-33-

Support of the applications by these witnesses is based pri-
marily upon their desire for faster and more consistent trans-
portation, better pickup service, and as much single-line service
as can be made available to them. They have a number of
carrier services available some of which they have not tried.

>» Witness Nos. 51, 59, 605.

— 1025 —

Castings

Fourteen witnesses who ship or receive castings testified in
the aggregate, in support of all of the applicants except Road-
way and Johnson. Red Ball called 4 witnesses, Deaton and
Jones 3 each, and Herrin, Floyd & Beasley, Strickland and Bag-.
gett | cach. Some witnesses supported more than one applicant.

Five of the 14 support service for shipments originating at
Birmingham and Sylacauga, Ala., and. Chattanooga, Tenn., Jes-
tined to Baton Rouge. La., or Texas points, particularly Houston
and Orange, and a sixth receives shipments at Noel, Mo., from
Birmingham.*” Approximately 140,000 pounds of freight
monthly is involved. From Birmingham they use Ryder to
Baton Rouge, ETMF or Mercury Freight to Texas points, and
Eagle to Noel. From Chattanooga, Baggett, Bowman and Robin-
son are used as origin carriers with open routing beyond. The
witness for the latter service has made no investigation as to
available single-line services. From Sylacauga Baggett and
North Alabama are the origin carriers with Ryder or Mercury
Freight as delivering carriers. Four of the six have no com-
plaint against the service they are using. The Sylacauga wit-
ness complained that Ryder, who at one time gave good service,
has discontinued making pickups at his plant and as a result he
has only joint-line service available. The witness from Noel
wants single-line faster service from Birmingham with deliveries
made at specified hours to meet work crews.

Of the other eight witnesses, seven testified with respect to
shipments moving to Atlanta and Birmingham or points beyond,
and one from Wichita Falls, Tex., to Greenville, Miss.”' The
latter uses through trailer service for 75 percent of his freight
and has only 6 or 8

-34-

“” Witness Nos. 24, 57, 581, 582. 651, 732.
“1 Witness Nos. 338, 354. 378, 385, 609, 705, 829, 889.

eperesemesercenseerse

— 1026 —

less-than-truckload shipments per year for which he is urging
single-line service to reduce transit time and lessen loss possi-
bilities. A total of approximately 1,265,000 pounds of freight
monthly is involved in the service requested by these eight wit-
nesses.

One supporting service from Kansas City to Atlanta is using
several carriers and complains of inconsistent transit time and
slow pickup service by one carrier. This witness, who has no
loading dock, has other single-line services available which he
has not tried, and he made no criticism of one of the single-line
services being used. Another witness supporting the Strickland
application proposes to use Strickland primarily in connection
with shipments moving from Shreveport to Cedartown and
Savannah, which wili be a joint-line operation. He now uses
"TMF or Ryder and their connections, and has made no investi-
gation as to other available services. Support for the Red Ball
and Herrin applications for service between Alpine City, La.,
on the one hand, and, Atlanta, Birmingham and points beyond
on the other, is based primarily on the proposition that the
volume of freight involved warrants additional single-line serv-
ice. However, the preponderance of the freight involved moves
inbound from eastern origins and can be handled by the appli-
cants supported only in a joint-line service.

Two witnesses supporting the applications of Jones and Red
Ball for service from their Russellville, Ark., and Sulphur
Springs, Tex., plants to Birmingham and Atlanta and points
beyond, now use their service as well as that of others as origin
carriers. Their support is based upon a desire to reduce 3-line
service which they are using to 2-line service. The record shows
that there is now available 2-line service by the carriers sup-
ported over other gateways.

The evidence of these 14 witnesses discloses ample transpor-
tation services available to them. Some have no complaints of
the service being used, some have services available which they

— 102 hs

have not used, and others want more transportation service
available. particularly single-line service. A dissatisfaction with
their present services seems to be a desire for a faster and more
consistent transportation than they are experiencing.

-35-

Miscellaneous Metal Articles

Forty-eight witnesses who ship or receive miscellaneous metal
articles not readily classified in any of the other categories, tes-
tified in the aggregate in support of all of the applicants. Red
Ball called 11 witnesses, Bowman 9. Roadway and Deaton 6
each, Strickland 5, Jones 4, Herrin, Baggett and Johnson 2
each, and Floyd & Beasley called | witness. A number of the
witnesses support: more than one applicant. These 48
witnesses have transportation services available. Some use a
number of different carriers. some are not aware of the extent
of the services which are available. and some have no complaint
of the service they receive. In general however, they want faster
and more consistent transportation service, and single-line serv-
ice from origin to major points. They. believe that those ends
can be substantially accomplished through the proposed oper-
ating schedules of the respective applicants they support. Most
of their shipments are in less-than-truckload quantities.

The 11 Red Ball witnesses ship or receive over 300,000
pounds of freight monthly.** Five of them are interested pri-
marily in service from Birmingham to various small Texas
points which Red Ball now serves, or to Mississippi or Louisiana
points. These witnesses receive knocked-down steel buildings
and parts, cast iron or cast aluminum articles. etc.. and desire
4 consistent transportation service with which they can coordi-
nate the delivery of freight with their work crews. In this con-

“2 Witness Nos. 187. 347. 434. 514. 542. 682. 765. 778. 797.
X02, 842.

SAR

— 1028 —

nection they favor single-line service as a means of better con-
trolling consistent transit time and tracing, and to reduce the
damage potential for some items such as frames and cast iron
products. These witnesses are now using such carrier services
as Mercury Freight, ETMF, Ryder, Jack Cole, Eagle (for
truckloads), Red Ball, Central, Gordons, Campbell Sixty-Six
and others, some in single-line and some in joint-line service.

~

The other six witnesses*support Red Ball’s proposed service
from such points as Paris, Bonham, Longview and Wichita
Falls, Tex., Monroe, La., and Littleton, Colo., t> Atlanta, Bir-
mingham, or Greenville (Miss.), or points beyond. The Long-
view witness has no complaint about his present service, but
wants another single-line service available. Roadway makes

daily pickups for the Bonham

“=

- 36 -

witness performing good service to Atlanta, and its spots a

trailer daily for the Paris shipper »whose primary destination

point is Atlanta. These two shippers use the joint-line service
of Red Ball and its

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0357%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.