gers, on the facts of this case, may leave the municipal limits of an authorized point so as to render the authorized service to an area within such municipal limits which cannot be otherwise reached. Cf. Fleetlines, Inc., v. Arrowhead Freight Lines, 54 M.C.C. 279, 281.

The private road over which defendant operates in this detached area of Long Branch continues to the clubhouse and parking areas. Since defendant enters upon this private roadway within its authorized territory, the municipal limits of Long Branch, it does not violate our rules and regulations in performing service beyond the Long Branch municipal limits by use of this private road. Our jurisdiction is confined to the use of public highways. Such has been our position in relation to motor carriers of property and is applicable for the same reasons to motor carriers of passengers. See Prue Motor Transp., Inc., v. P. B. Mutrie Motor Transp., Inc., 84 M.C.C. 153, Transportation Activities of Tornetta, 48 M.C.C. 637.

We therefore find that transportation by defendant of passengers and their baggage on an individual fare basis by motorbus, in interstate commerce, between New York, N. Y., and the racetrack of the Monmouth County Jockey Club, Oceanport, N. J., was and is within the scope of its authority heretofore described; that defendant has not been shown to be conducting other than authorized operations in performing such transportation; and that the complaint should be dismissed.

An appropriate order will be entered.

95 M.C.C.

No. MC-1968 (SUB-NO. 73)

BRASWELL FREIGHT LINES, INC., EXTENSION-ATLANTA

Decided July 1, 1964

Public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities with exceptions over a system of regular routes extending between Jackson, Miss., and Atlanta, Ga. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and application in all other respects denied.

M. Ward Bailey, T. S. Christopher, M. L. Johnson, and Allen P. Schowfield for applicant.

W. D. Benson, Jr., Robert J. Bernard, Jacob P. Billing, Bates Block, Lester M. Bridgeman, Blaine Buchanan, John P. Carlton, Clyde W. Carver, James N. Clay III, W. W. Conner, Robert C. Dryden, Robert L. Garrett, Wentworth E. Griffin, Leroy Hallman, Walter Harwood, Elmo Holt, Charles D. Matthews, Donald L. Morris James W. Nisbet, Guy H. Postell, Jerry Prestridge, Ralph W. Pulley, Jr., Lee Reeder, R. J. Reynolds, Jr., R. J. Reynolds III, M. T. Schumacker, A. J. Soldani, Robert E. Tate, Frank W. Taylor, William O. Turney, Allan Watkins, and Ed White for pro

testants.

Drew L. Carraway for intervener in opposition.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS HUTCHINSON, WEBB, AND BUSH

HUTCHINSON, Commissioner:

Exceptions were filed by applicant to the order recommended by the joint board, and protestants and interveners replied. Our conclusions differ from those recommended.

By application filed April 28, 1960, as amended, Braswell Freight Lines, Inc., of El Paso, Tex., seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing motor common carrier transportation of general commodities with exceptions, over a system of regular routes extending between Jackson, Miss., Atlanta and Columbus, Ga., and Birmingham and Mont

gomery, Ala. Except for two alternate routes between Birmingham and Columbus and Montgomery, applicant seeks to serve all points within 5 miles of the routes sought and all points within 15 miles of the principal points situated on the routes. 1

Applicant has existing regular route operations between Jackson on the east and Dallas-Fort Worth, Tex., and Tulsa and Oklahoma City, Okla., on the west, and, in addition, its routes extend from New Orleans, La., on the south, through Jackson to Memphis, Tenn., on the north. Applicant is the wholly owned subsidiary of Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., and this parent company holds regular-route authority between Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, Tex., and between those points and San Antonio and El Paso, Tex., Phoenix, Ariz., and Los Angeles, Calif. By order of the Commission, Finance Board Number 1, of May 5, 1964, in No. MC-F-8655, Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc.-MergerBraswell Freight Lines, Inc., the merger of the operating rights and properties of applicant into the parent company was authorized. A grant of the authority sought here would enable applicant to provide transportation (a) between points on the considered routes in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, and (b) between points on the considered routes, on the one hand, and, on the other, points on the routes presently served by applicant and its parent company.

Extensive hearings were held on the application. Testimony was received from, inter alia, witnesses representing 311 supporting shippers, 2 13 supporting motor carriers which propose to perform connecting services with applicant in conjunction with the routes sought here, and a large number of motor carriers, railroads, and freight forwarders opposing the application. In all, 141/2 weeks were devoted to the hearing; the transcript of testimony extends to 10,955 pages; and 750 exhibits were admitted into evidence.

The joint board found that applicant has failed to show that it is financially fit to provide the proposed service and, further, that it has failed to establish that the supporting shippers need this new motor carrier operation in view of the services already available from authorized carriers serving the affected territories. Accordingly, it recommended that the application be denied. On exceptions applicant asserts that the joint board erroneously refused to allow shipper witnesses to testify concerning their The specific authority is set forth in appendix A. The opposing motor carriers, freight forwarders, and railroads are named in appendix B.

2 The testimony of 68 of these shipper witnesses was stipulated.

adverse transportation experience in the use of existing carriers without corroborating their testimony from shipping documents or their equivalent, contrary to the decision in Hancock-Trucking, Inc., Ext.-Gulf and West Coast Routes, 62 M.C.C. 513; that the board during a substantial part of the hearing improperly refused to allow shipper witnesses to testify that they "need" the proposed services; and that in the midst of the presentation of applicant's case the board improperly imposed a 300-hour time limit on testimony adduced by applicant. Applicant reiterates its objections to certain rulings made at the hearing by the joint board and argues that the joint board's interpretation of the evidence as reflected in its statement of facts is incorrect and is "slanted" in protestants favor; that its conclusions and recommendations based thereon are erroneous; and that the application should be granted. In their replies3 protestants argue that there is ample motor carrier service available to the shippers from existing carriers; that new services between Atlanta and Birmingham and Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston have only recently been inaugurated and should be tried by the supporting shippers before additional authority is granted; and that the board's recommendations are correct and should be affirmed.

The evidence adduced, the board's recommendation, the exceptions, and the replies have been carefully considered. As seen, applicant complains of substantial bias on the part of the board, claiming that the board's rulings on the evidence and its statements of fact set out in its report have favored the opposing carriers unduly. Our review of the record fails to indicate that this is so. Although in requiring shipper witnesses to support their testimony concerning adverse experience in the use of existing carriers by reference to shipping documents, the joint board required a degree of specificity and corroboration which the Commission does not usually exact from shipper witnesses, this ruling promoted an orderly development of an extremely lengthy record. Applicant had ample opportunity to

3Six sets of replies were filed by (1) Mercury Freight Lines, Inc., (2) Roadway Express, Inc., (3) Alabama Highway Express, Inc., (4) Baggett Transportation Company, (5) Campbell Sixty-Six Express, Inc., Georgia-Florida-Alabama Transportation Company, Inc., and United Freight Terminal, Inc., and (6) the rail protestants and Dixie Highway Express, Inc., Hoover Motor Express Company, Bowman Transportation, Inc., Deaton Truck Lines, Inc., Holloway Motor Express, Central Motor Express, Inc., Jack Cole Company, T.I.M.E., Incorporated, Georgia Highway Express, Inc., B. C. Truck Lines, Inc., Atlanta New Orleans Motor Freight Company, White Truck Lines, Inc., Dance Freight Lines, Inc., Transcon Lines, Herrin Transportation Company, and Western Truck Lines, Ltd.

advise its supporting witnesses to bring corroborating documents to the hearing, and it took advantage of that opportunity by presenting witnesses who amply supported their testimony with shipping documents. The main effect of this ruling was to foster a more concise and useful record. With respect to the board's exclusion of testimony as to whether particular shippers "need" the proposed service, it is a common practice for witnesses to be asked and to give their opinion as to whether a proposed service is needed. However, such testimony adds little or nothing to the record, and in a strict sense such a question involves a matter of law which is the ultimate question for the Commission to decide in an application for motor common carrier authority. We believe that it is a matter within the proper discretion of the joint board to determine if it desires to receive the benefit of a witness' opinion as to whether a proposed service is "needed." Our review of the record indicates that in curbing the time allotted applicant for completion of its case-in-chief, the joint board acted within the mandate of rule 1.76 of the Commission's General Rules of Practice which imposes upon the hearing officer (in this case the joint board) the duty to limit the number of witnesses whose testimony may be merely cumulative and that applicant has failed to show this ruling to be prejudical error. We consider that the board's rulings at the hearing on all substantial issues were correct and that the statements of fact in its report are comprehensive and objective. We find that the board's statements of fact are correct in all material respects, and, except as modified herein, we adopt them as our own by reference. The facts are restated here solely to the extent necessary to an understanding and disposition of the issues.

Applicant operates 89 tractors, 154 trailers, and 83 pickup trucks. Of these, 140 trailers are leased from the parent company. Institution of the operations here would require up to 20 tractors and 40 trailers in addition to pickup and delivery equipment and would involve the expenditure of up to $600,000. The joint board concluded that applicant is not financially fit to conduct the proposed operations. This conclusion was based on the fact that applicant had conducted its operations at a loss in recent years and owes its parent company approximately $516,000. Applicant's balance sheet as of September 30, 1960, shows total assets of approximately $1,489,792, and current assets of $839,504, including $416,718 cash. Its current liabilities, excluding the debt owed to the parent company, were $503,311. It is clear that, aside from