Water Transportation By RICHARD H. SPECKER, Editor Executive Vice-President, National Water Carriers Association, Inc. Export Grain from Buffalo to New York Petitions for Reopening Denied The Interstate Commerce Commission has again refused to equalize rates on export grain traveling by rail from Buffalo, N. Y. to North Atlantic ports. The Commission refused such a request last May, but the Department of Agriculture, the Port of Boston Authority, the Port of New York Authority, and the railroads asked for reopening, reargument, and reconsideration. By order dated December 4, 1950, the full Commission denied the petitions, on the grounds that petitioners had not shown good cause for reopening the case. The railroads sought equalization on the grounds that the lower rates to Philadelphia and Baltimore have caused a lot of traffic to be diverted to those ports. The Commission said, however, that the diversion was only a temporary situation due largely to the fact that the Government was buying grain for export. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Company Amended Certificate The Interstate Commerce Commission has issued a fourth amended certificate in Docket No. W-417 to the Weyerhaeuser Steamship Company, uniting the operations of the Pacific Coast Direct Line (Docket No. W-617) with those of Weyerhaeuser. The transaction was approved in Finance Docket No. 16909. The amended certificate authorizes Weyerhaeuser to operate as a common carrier by water by self-propelled vessels in the transportation of commodities generally from specified ports on the Pacific coast to specified ports on the Atlantic coast, through the Panama Canal, and from ports on the Atlantic coast to ports on the Pacific coast. Greene Line Steamers, Inc. Lease Effective Date Postponed By report and order dated December 8, 1947 in Finance Docket No. 15832, the Interstate Commerce Commission authorized the lease by Commercial Barge Lines, Inc., and control through that company by Walter F. Carey and Bert B. Beveridge, of that portion of the operating rights authorizing the transportation of commodities generally between ports and points along the Ohio River from Huntington, W. Va. to Louisville, Ky., inclusive, and property of Greene Line Steamers, Inc. for a period of three years from the date of consummation following the Commission's approval, or from December 16, 1947. By supplemental applications filed on December 6 and December 8, 1950, the parties to the proceeding requested approval of an extension of the lease and control for a period of 180 days, or until final disposition by the Commission of an application being prepared requesting authority for the Commercial Barge Lines, Inc. to purchase the operating rights and property of the Greene Line Steamers, Inc. covered by the lease. By order dated December 13, 1950, the Commission authorized extension of the expiration of the lease to February 14, 1951. C. G. Willis Extension of Operations The Interstate Commerce Commission has issued an order in Docket No. W-557, Sub. No. 2, authorizing extension of operations by C. G. Willis as a common carrier by non-self-propelled vessels with the use of separate towing vessels, in the transportation of commodities generally, to include service between ports and points along the St. Johns River above Jacksonville, Fla. to and including Sanford, Fla., but issuance of an amended certificate is withheld pending applicant's readiness to begin operation on or before June 30, 1951. The application was opposed by the Atwacoal Transportation Company (now American Coastal Lines, Inc.) and various rail and motor carriers. Since the discontinuance of operations by the St. Johns River Line in 1943, the territory involved has had no water common carrier service. Although Atwacoal is authorized to operate as a contract carrier along the St. Johns River, its authority is limited to transportation in lots of 500 tons or more for not more than three shippers, and the Commission points out that, as a contract carrier, Atwacoal is not compelled to serve the general public, and may discriminate as between shippers, points, or territories, and that, moreover, a shipper may have valid objections to the contractual terms imposed by such carriers. The report states: "Although rail and motor service is available to the points here involved, we have found that where a need for water transportation is shown, shippers and communities are entitled to adequate service by that medium as well. In our opinion there is evidence of such need." C. G. Willis is presently authorized to operate as a common carrier by non-self-propelled barges with the use of separate towing vessels in the transportation of commodities generally between all ports and points on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and connecting inland waterways from Trenton, N. J. to Jacksonville, Fla. Olympic-Griffiths Lines, Inc. Extension of Operations Examiners Claude A. Rice and F. R. Schweickhardt have issued a proposed report in Docket No. W-434, Sub. No. 5, recommending that the Commission authorize extension of operations by Olympic-Griffiths Lines, Inc. as a common carrier by self-propelled vessels in the transportation of commodities generally to include service between all ports in Washington and Oregon, and all ports in California on the Pacific coast and tributary waterways, not including the Columbia and Willamette Rivers above Portland, Oreg., except to the extent such operations are authorized by its present certificate. The application is opposed by Coastwise Line, Oliver J. Olson & Co., Pacific Coastwise Conference, and Pacific Southwest Railroad Association. Applicant was organized in December 1949 to perform the water carrier operations formerly conducted by James Griffiths & Sons, Inc. and by Olympic Steamship Co., Inc. Applicant is owned equally by Griffiths and Olympic, each organization owning 50 percent of the stock. Burns Steamship Company At the request of the applicant, the Interstate Commerce Commission has dismissed the application of Burns Steamship Company, of Los Angeles, Calif., Docket No. W-1021, for temporary authority under the provisions of section 311 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act to operate as a carrier by water in the transportation of lumber and lumber products from points in Oregon and Washington on the Columbia River and from Portland, Linnton, and Coos Bay, Oreg. to San Diego, Los Angeles Harbor, and Long Beach, Calif. Refrigerated Steamship Line Rates and Advance Charges By report and order in Docket No. 30403, dated December 20, 1950, the Interstate Commerce Commission has found that proportional rates on citrus fruits from Fort Pierce and Jacksonville, Fla., by water, to New York, N. Y., which vary with the inland origin of the fruit, are not unreasonable or otherwise unlawful, but that Refrigerated Steamship Line's practice of advancing trucking charges to the truckmen actually performing the cartage, whether the trucks are owned by the shipper or otherwise, for the transportation of citrus fruit from interior Florida points to the ports of Fort Pierce or Jacksonville is unlawful in that (1) no charge is made therefor, (2) it is an unreasonable practice and provides a means for discrimination, and (3) it constitutes an unfair and destructive competitive practice. Freight Forwarder Regulation By GILES MORROW, Editor General Counsel, Freight Forwarders Institute Amendments to Part IV Relating to Forwarder Status and With approval by the President on December 20, 1950, bill H. R. 5967 became effective as Public Law 881-81st Congress. Full text of the bill, as enacted, was reproduced in the December issue of the Journal, together with the remarks made in the Senate by Senators Magnuson and Bricker, the only Senators who spoke with respect to passage of the bill (18 I. C. C. P. Journal 237). Part IV is changed by the new Act in two respects: The definition of a freight forwarder contained in section 402 (a) (5) is changed by addition of the words "as a common carrier" following the words "general public"; and section 409, respecting utilization by freight forwarders of the services of motor common carriers, is superseded by an entirely new section authorizing forwarders and motor carriers to operate under contracts. H. R. 5967, as introduced by Chairman Crosser of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, was a companion bill to S. 2113, introduced earlier by Senator Johnson, Chairman of the corresponding Senate Committee. The House Committee amended the bill in several respects, and it was passed by the House in that form. The Senate then took up and passed the House version, laying aside S. 2113. The purpose of the bill is stated in the House Committee report, No. 2489, as follows: "The purpose of this bill is to amend part IV of the Interstate Commerce Act (which provides for the regulation of freight forwarders), so as to (1) authorize freight forwarders and common carriers by motor vehicle, subject to certain conditions and limitations, to enter into contracts governing the utilization by such freight forwarders of the services and instrumentalities of such common carriers by motor vehicle and the compensation to be paid therefor, and (2) make clear the status of freight forwarders as common carriers." By the terms of Section 4 of the Act, the amendments to part IV became effective on the date of enactment, December 20, 1950, except that for a period of nine months freight forwarders and motor carriers are authorized to operate under joint rates in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of section 409 as that subsection was in force immediately prior to the date of enactment of the new law. During that nine months' period, contracts entered into under the new law may not become effective. This, in effect, will maintain status quo insofar as -350 arrangements between forwarders and motor carriers are concerned for a period of nine months from December 20, 1950, and at the end of that period there will be a change over to arrangements authorized by the new law. House Report No. 2489, 81st Congress, deals at some length with the issues involved in the bill. As to the change in the definition, the report states: "Even those who oppose the bill, for the most part, concede that freight forwarders are common carriers in their relations with the public. The opponents argue, however, that freight forwarders occupy a dual role and that when they deal with other carriers they are shippers only and should be treated as such. The term 'common carrier' was used at common law, and has been adopted by statute, to describe the activities of a person who assumes certain obligations and responsibilities to the public. The nature of those obligations and responsibilities, rather than methods of dealing between common carriers, is the test normally applied in determining status as a common carrier. "Unquestionably part IV of the act imposes upon freight forwarders the same basic duties, responsibilities, limitations, and restrictions which are imposed upon any regulated common carrier, whether rail, motor, or water. The provisions of part IV were either copied from, or closely patterned after, comparable provisions of parts I, II, and III. Many of the provisions of those parts are incorporated specifically by reference in part IV, including the billof-lading provisions, enforcement and procedure requirements, and sections relating to emergency powers. The Elkins Act, designed particularly to govern common carriers, is made applicable to freight forwarders. In incorporating such provisions no exception is included to indicate that forwarders are not to be considered as full common carriers. "Express companies have always been regarded as common carriers, and are regulated as such, although they arrange for service by railroads under contract. The fact that express companies do not own or operate the physical facilities which actually carry their shipments has not prevented them from being considered as common carriers. While there are certain differences between freight forwarders and express companies, the controlling principle regarding their status is the same in both cases. "Therefore, to describe freight forwarders as common carriers, as the amendment made by the first section of this bill proposes to do, does not change the status which they have always had, but simply recognizes that status by statutory law. This will remove any anomaly and confusion regarding the status of freight forwarders and make clear that they have the status of common carriers.” Amended section 409 is described by the House Report, in part, as follows: |