history, its past operations, and those of its predecessor are described in Isthmian S. S. Co. Common Carrier Application, 250 I. C. C. 359, 362 and 363. Based on such operations, and others not necessary to describe here, applicant was granted a second amended permit authorizing it to perform freighting services as a contract carrier by water in the transportation of iron and steel articles, blocking cement, coke and coke breeze, or dust, ferromanganese, fire clay, fluorspar, pig iron, scrap iron or steel slag, spraying oil, spiegeleisen, sulphate of ammonia, sulphur, tin or terne plate, new barges, derrick boats, construction and erection material and equipment, falsework and lock gates, between points on the Monongahela, Ohio, Cumberland, and Kanawha Rivers, the Mississippi River below its junction with the Ohio River, and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

United States Steel supports the application. There is in prospect a movement of pig tin from Texas City, Tex., and New Orleans, La., to a plant of the Carnegie Company at Irwin, Pa., a point on the Union Railroad, adjacent to the Monongahela River, in the Pittsburgh area. This will be new traffic, which will be available only if suitable transportation at the lowest possible freight charges can be arranged by applicant. The Irwin plant at present obtains its pig tin requirements from Baltimore, Md., and New York, N. Y., but the source of supply is expected to be shifted to Texas City and possibly New Orleans if the proposed authority is granted. The material would be transported north-bound in applicant's barges to Munhall, Pa., and there transshipped for movement beyond by railroad to the Irwin plant. The great preponderance of tonnage transported by applicant moves south-bound, and the proposed additional authority would tend to balance its operations with north-bound tonnage. An estimate was made that approximately 5,000 tons of pig tin, producing about $35,000 in gross revenue, will move north-bound annually, if applicant is granted authority to move this traffic.

Protestants contend that no showing has been made that the proposed service will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. They assert that railroad facilities and equipment are adequate to transport the prospective traffic from and to the territory covered by the application. An extensive system of competing rail carriers operates between Texas City and St. Louis, Mo., Memphis, Tenn., and New Orleans, which with rail connections east thereof offers through freight service to the Pittsburgh area. Considerable data were submitted by certain southwestern rail carriers, showing the quantity, type and value of railroad plant, equipment, personnel, and properties serving, or capable of serving points in the Southwest, including Texas City, railway freight schedules from Texas

City, the number of freight trains operated, average number of tons handled per locomotive, carloads of pig tin transported by certain railroads from Texas City to various points in central, southern, and western trunk-line territories, for designated periods, and rates on pig tin over competing all-rail and barge-line routes from Texas City and New Orleans to the Pittsburgh area. These data were presented to show that southwestern railroads are operating north-bound at approximately 50 percent of their capacity.

Reference is made by protestants to the Mississippi Valley Barge Line and the American Barge Line Company, water common carriers which serve points along the Mississippi River system from Pittsburgh to New Orleans. However, there is no evidence in respect of the services rendered by these carriers or their ability to meet the particular needs of the supporting shipper.

As noted, the pig tin requirements of the Irwin plant at present are moving from eastern points. None of the exhibits showing movement of pig tin from Texas City indicates that any of this traffic now is moving by rail to the Pittsburgh area. Thus the traffic would be new, and will not move unless transported by applicant. Moreover, if the Carnegie Company were to transport the shipments in its own barges they would move in private carriage not subject to regulation. A denial of the application not only would fail to create new or added traffic to protestants, but also would preclude applicant from completely serving the transportation requirements of the parent company. On the other hand, the granting of the authority sought would enable applicant with its existing facilities to provide additional transportation related to that which it now has authority to perform without any diversion of traffic from the protesting carriers.

The principal officers in charge of applicant's operations and affairs have had many years' experience in the operation and management of a water-carrier service. Applicant has adequate vessels, facilities, and other equipment to perform the proposed service. These facts, together with other facts of record, show that applicant is fit, willing, and able to conduct the operation for which it here seeks authority.

The movement in prospect is from Texas City and possibly New Orleans to the Pittsburgh area, and the question arises as to limiting any authority granted herein to a specific point-to-point basis. Applicant's present operating rights, although restricted as to commodities to be transported, are general in territorial scope. Applicant's operations are confined to services along the Mississippi River system for the corporate family of the United States Steel, and it does not operate between fixed termini. Considering all the circumstances,

no useful purpose would be served by limiting applicant's operations with respect to pig tin to the specific points or ports named on this record.

We find that operation by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a contract carrier by non-self-propelled vessels with the use of separate towing vessels, in the transportation of pig tin between ports and points it is at present authorized to serve, will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the provisions of part III of the act and the requirements, rules, and regulations prescribed by the Commission thereunder; and that an appropriate third amended permit and order should be issued authorizing such operation in addition to those specified in its present permit, subject, however, to general conditions which are necessary to carry out, with respect to such operations, the requirements of part III of the act and the orders, rules, and regulations of the Commission thereunder.

A third amended permit and order which would supersede and cancel the second amended permit and order of June 18, 1943, will be issued.

285 I. C. C.

No. W-388 (SUB-No. 4)1

WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION EXTENSIONCALIFORNIA EASTBOUND

Submitted March 20, 1951. Decided June 25, 1951

Public convenience and necessity found to require extension of applicant's operation as a common carrier by self-propelled vessels to include (1) the transportation of commodities generally from specified California ports to Baltimore, Md., and specified Atlantic coast ports south thereof, and (2) the coastwise and intercoastal transportation of passengers between specified California ports and various Atlantic and Pacific coast ports, between Miami, Fla., and various Atlantic coast ports, and from Miami to various Pacific coast ports. Sixth amended certificate and order issued.

Warren Price, Jr., and S. F. Stoudenmire for applicant.

Balthasar H. Meyer, Thomas E. Grady, T. C. Maurer, J. R. Stanfield, W. L. Glaze, and Odell Kominers for interveners.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 4, COMMISSIONERS MAHAFFIE, ROGERS, AND JOHNSON BY DIVISION 4:

By application filed July 10, 1950, as amended, under the provisions of section 309 (c) of the Interstate Commerce Act, Waterman Steamship Corporation, doing business as Arrow Line, of Mobile, Ala., seeks a revised certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing an extension of its operations as a common carrier by self-propelled vessels, in interstate or foreign commerce, to include the transportation (1) of commodities generally east-bound from Oleum, Selby, South Vallejo, Crockett, Port Costa, Martinez, and Port Hueneme, Calif., and the California ports which it is at present authorized to serve west-bound only 2 to Baltimore, Md., Newport News and Norfolk, Va., Wilmington, N. C., Charleston and Georgetown, S. C.,

1 This report also embraces for the purpose of giving effect to the determination herein, Nos. W-388, Waterman Steamship Corporation Common Carrier Application, W-388 (Sub-No. 1) Waterman Steamship Corporation Extension-Yaquina Bay, W-388 (SubNo. 2) Waterman Steamship Corporation Extension-Passengers, W-383, Christenson Steamship Co. Common Carrier Application, and W-384, Sudden & Christenson (Arrow Line) Common Carrier Application.

* San Francisco, Alameda, Oakland, Richmond, Mare Island, Stockton, Los Angeles Harbor, Long Beach, and San Diego, Calif.

Savannah and Brunswick, Ga., and Jacksonville and Port Everglades, Fla., (2) of commodities generally and passengers from the Pacific coast ports specified in its present certificate and the California ports named in (1) above, to Miami, Fla., (3) of passengers between the California ports named in (1) above, and between those ports, on the one hand, and, on the other, Atlantic and Pacific coast ports specified in its present certificate, and (4) of passengers between the Atlantic coast ports specified in its present certificate and Miami, Fla.

The application as filed was protested by Luckenbach Gulf Steamship Company, Inc., American-Hawaiian Steamship Company, Pope & Talbot, Inc., and States Steamship Company (Quaker Line). The last-named protestant did not appear at the hearing. Luckenbach, American-Hawaiian, and Pope & Talbot withdrew their opposition in view of the application's having been amended to exclude the request for authority to transport property east-bound to Boston, Mass., New York, N. Y., and Philadelphia, Pa. Various port and traffic interests appeared at the hearing in support of the application. No one opposed it.

3

By fifth amended certificate and order issued January 13, 1950, applicant is authorized to operate as a common carrier by self-propelled vessels (1) in the transportation of commodities generally from 32 Atlantic coast ports to 36 Pacific coast ports, and from the Washington and Oregon ports named in footnote 4 to the said Atlantic coast ports, and (2) in the coastwise and intercoastal transportation of passengers between the Atlantic and Pacific coast ports named in footnotes 3 and 4, except between Baltimore and Norfolk and Newport News.

Applicant is successor in interest to Sudden & Christenson, formerly managing operator of and for the vessels of the Waterman Steamship Corporation and the Christenson Steamship Company. Successively they have engaged in intercoastal service since 1925 in the transportation of property between Atlantic and Pacific coast ports under the trade name of Arrow Line.

Portland, Maine, Boston, Mass., Portsmouth and Providence, R. I., New London and Bridgeport, Conn., Albany, Poughkeepsie, Irvington, New York, and Brooklyn, N. Y., Hoboken, Jersey City, Bayonne, Port Newark, Bayway, Camden, and Paulsboro, N. J., Philadelphia, Chester, and Marcus Hook, Pa., Wilmington, Del., Baltimore, Md., Newport News and Norfolk, Va., Wilmington, N. C., Georgetown and Charleston, S. C., Savannah and Brunswick, Ga., and Jacksonville and Port Everglades, Fla.

• Bellingham, Anacortes, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Bremerton, Port Townsend, Port Angeles, Grays Harbor, Willapa Harbor, Longview, Kalama, and Vancouver, Wash., Portland, St. Helens, Prescott, Rainier, Westport, Wauna, Bradwood, Astoria, Warrenton, Yaquina Bay, Marshfield, Empire, and North Bend, Oreg., and San Francisco, Alameda, Oakland, Richmond, Mare Island, Stockton, Los Angeles Harbor, Long Beach, and San Diego, Calif.