OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

ZtellroQQ c8~eaion at TQxtlS 

Auaala , Texfu 

ettsntioa .to that pert of pqrrgqpq~(di,, seotloa 5a or 33. 

00 there 

that rb am herring a oontraat 

end ah0 operator of a oomaoa 

r~xafl line should taetlry that ho 

e aorvic~ ao raeot tho raquixwmntm 

of tha budnea8 oonobrn ahi& require8 the senlosn 

of the aoatmot omler ap?lioant, biut that, by the 

addition Of tl-U&E ol ad'ledUb6 Or tl'kin '3QUiJ%W!It, 

5~ioi-1 oomn oarrler IQ oapable of rsnllcrlng the propoecQ servioe, the authmitg to psrfom whloh the 

oontrsot carrier applioant 18 fieekln& ia suoh testimny about the addition of ttu@ke or 6ohedule8 or 
Railroad Ocmmia5ion oi Tex.es, pagO 2 

traiil equiplssnt admlsalble or ia sach oommon 

oerrier oontincrd to the aontcntion that his existiug truok8, sohedulee end equipment are oapable of rendering the senloe involved in the 

contraat oarrier applioatlon? 

"2. 3oes the Coraalsslon have aotual or 

gotortlal power to grant e contraatWo8rrler ap 

plioatlon .where it oonolusirely epgears that the 

,exlnting truok8, facll.itloa imd train equlpmnt 

are not, adequate to perfom the .oervlces ?ropossd 

sy P oontraot osrrier applicant, Sut :pimre it ooxOlUSiVely QFF%FLTS that 8UCh OOJ31oIl OtllTi%rS P.Tb 

_ ready, able and nllllhg to increase their eahedules, 

truciu, faoll$tla8 or equlpaent to th% point shere 

they areoapeble of ITmd6rl;lg the mrvlce proposed 

by the oontraot carrier nppllcant? 

"3. ?lease advise us on whoa the burden oi 

pleadings and aroof lie In tho ytter ofsetabllshing whether or not exist& oarrlers are randsring adequate aervioe for the cornmoditlesouqht 

to be transported by the contrsot~.carrler applioma. 

*li has further been auggeate3 to UB that 

the Fortion of paragraph: 

~*llkanisa, the Cotieslon shall hare ao 

authority to gant any oontraot carrier 

a;jplloation for tcie trahsporteticm 0r any 

oomoditiss in any territory or bet7feen 

any points where the existing oarrlsrs 

tirs r6r;&dnq, Gr ere oapable,of rendering, 

a rea%oheblJ adequate service in the trmsi>ortatlon of s.~ch cmmilties.~ 

refers only to spedltlimd zotor aaziers by the reicr6nce to existlzt~ oarriors. 

"!+. 33az.e ;IdVl.56 33s If fhe tern 'axistin carriers' 
Railroad CormnBaslon of Taxas, Qage 3 

mane only specialized riotor carriers or doee 

it mean all oarriers under the auporvision of 

this Cora!Aleslon." 

Cur answer to your firs& question is that evidenoe tending to show that the exiatlng uarrlef is ready, able 

and willing to. obtain additional equipsent to improve hle servioe would be admissible. The dlfrerenoe between ownerehlp of 

a truok and the ownership of mcneg with which a truok -might 

be pumhasod, in suoh a oase, 

the avidence. 

would go only to the weight of 

Uiihm! the quoted language of' the jot, the aontraat 

aarrier permit mentioned ln your aeeond question should be 

denied. It is exgresely provided that the contract terrier 

applioetlonahall not be granted, cot 3rJy shere existirK 

oarriers are rendering a reaeoaably adequate mmrIce, ‘sut also 

wnere they are OaFable of 80 doing. iienoe, we think tkrt where 

the exiatlnq oarricr uakes timely otter to inprove ita aervioe, 

oonvinoes the Commission and obtains fikdlngs that he is flnanola3J.y and phyaioally able to ryike suoh lmprovenent and will 

promptly da so, It 1s oontemplatsd Chfit such erietin& ocrrier 

or carriers shall be given the opprtunity to remedy the deftate in existing services so OS to .BEXKB the acme adequate. 

-‘ife are not to be understood, however, +a Raying that the mere 

deolaration of intention on the part of ,tha existicg carrier 

that he wlLl acquire additional equipment and remeby the dez"eats In his serviae must necessarily be taken aa oonoluslve. 

Such a deolaxatlon or promise might be accepted by the Couuni~ 

aion or it ml&t be rejeated, depending upon the lndlvldual 

ease. 

Referring to your third question, the burden Is 

upon the ap;rliaanto show in the pleading8 and by su??orting 

proof that he should be granted the pernIt, iaoludlng the showing that exlstlw services are inadequate. 

irur anewer to your f’ourth qusstlon is that the 

term Wexletlng oarriers,m aa used in paragraph (dj or -7ection 

5a, d. ii. 351, has reference to all typea of carriers servinS 

the territory. There simply is nothing in the stat'lte lvhlah 

seems to mqgeet to ue that ttle meaning or the term should be 

reatrlcted to speaislized rotor oarriers.