| OCR Text |
Show territory, and could haul in any direction all commodities in which traffic was available for which their equipment was fitted. They could offer common carrier service on some routes and contract service on others, and private carriers could engage freely in transportation for com- pensation on return hauls or to fill partially filled boats on out-bound hauls. They could render regular service more or less upon schedule or anywhere-for-hire service at the behest of the shipper, and were free at all times to make any adjustments in the scope of their operating territory and service which business conditions might demand. The forces controlling the development of the water carriers were principally economic, e. g., competi- tion, character, and flow of traffic, business acumen, capital resources, and technological improvements. Federal controls over the entrance of new water carriers and regulatory restrictions imposed on "grandfather" and new carriers have lessened their entrepreneurial freedom, and have tended to more or less freeze the operations of water carriers according to the pattern prevailing in 1940, thus retarding or entirely preventing many adjustments with respect to traffic and territories served. The Interstate Commerce Commission exercises control over new for-hire operations of water carriers by granting to or denying to applicants the certificates of public con- venience and necessity, or the permits required for lawful operations as common or contract carriers in interstate commerce, and by placing conditions and limitations upon the operating authority granted. A new common-carrier operation or an extension of an established service can be inaugurated on a permanent basis only after a certificate of public convenience and necessity has been secured from the Commission, and a new contract-carrier operation or an extension of an existing one requires a permit from the same source. The burden is placed upon common car- riers to prcve that their proposed operation or extension is or will be required by public convenience and necessity, and upon contract carriers that their proposals will be consistent with the public interest. Under this procedure, carriers are denied operating authority where such proof is deemed inadequate, or, if a certificate is granted, the operations permitted are limited to that extent. Common and contract carriers in bona fide operation when the axt became effective were treated differently than applicants for new or additional services. Under the provisos, known as the "grandfather" clauses, they were required to apply for and eventually to obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity and permits, respec- tively, as authorization for continuance of their established operations, but issuance of the necessary authorities was not made contingent upon submitting to the Commission proof of public convenience and necessity or consistency with the public interest. By granting or withholding certificates of public con- venience and necessity and operating permits to water carriers, the Government attempts to exercise positive con- trol over the supply of transportation and the standards of competition, but has not been able to accomplish very rigid controls in the water-carrier field for the following reasons: 1. It was applied too late to affect materially the de- velopment o:f the operating pattern. Protection was af- forded to operators in service at the time of passage of the act by the usual "grandfather" provisions. In respect of either a common or a contract carrier, if it or a predecessor was in bona fide operation on January 1, 1940, in the service for which a certificate or a permit was sought and had continued in such operation, the Commission was re- quired to issue a certificate or a permit without further showing of public interest, if application was made within 120 days from the effective date of the act. As illus- trated above, the Commission in administering the "grandfather" clause has been far more liberal in the water-carrier field than it has been in the motor-carrier field, with respect to types of routes to be operated and cities to be served. The Commission had to start, there- fore, with the existing pattern of service as a base and could not materially reduce the number of competitors even though the cost and traffic conditions might have suggested to them the desirability of such action. Its authority is essentially confined to the consideration of new applicants or the extension of new services. Part III of the Interstate Commerce Act does not provide revocation authority and procedure such as are found in part II and part IV of the act. 2. In reality, certificate and permit regulations are ef- fective for only a small percentage of the total domestic water transportation system, since so many types of com- mon and contract carriers and operations are exempted in whole or in part from the certificate and permit provisions of the act, and the very extensive private operations remain unregulated. "That exemption provisions of the act ex- empt most of the transportation by water carriers, other than the so-called package-freight carriers, that many car- riers have preferred to confine their operations to such exempt traffic and have not seen fit to seek authority from the Commission to handle regulated traffic, noted" (Bar- rett Line, Inc., 265 I. C. C. 94 (101)). 3. The Commission is specifically precluded from at- taching to any certificates or permits, terms or conditions that would restrict the right of the carrier to add equip- ment, facilities, or contracts over the routes authorized as the development of the business and the demands of the public shall require. "Section 309 does not authorize the Commission to specify 'the service to be rendered,' but precludes it from attaching terms and conditions to a certificate which would deprive the public of the best type of service which could be rendered between ports by a water carrier." Policy of ICC and Carriers With Respect to Coordina- tion of Water Carrier Rates and Services With Other Forms of Transport.-The original Act To Regulate Commerce of 1887 authorized the Federal regulation of domestic water transportation in a limited way, by pro- viding for the regulation of transportation partly by rail and partly by water when both forms of transportation were used under a common control, management, or ar- rangement for a continuous carriage or shipment. The Hepburn Act of 1906 gave the Commission authority to establish through routes and rates not only between two or more railroads, but also between a railroad and a con- necting water carrier. The Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 contained a provision designed to protect the water car- riers by prohibiting rail carriers from increasing rates previously reduced to meet water competition, unless the Commission found that the increase was justified by changed conditions other than the elimination of water competition. 436 |
