TWEA-JTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable James' E. Kildag, Director 

Motor TransportatLon Division 

Railroad Cotimlssion of Texas 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-1843 

Re: Authority of Railroad Comniisslon to 

limit interstate operations of Highway Motor Freight Lines, Inc. 

You have handed to us copy of a certificate of convenience and necessity, dated January 14, 1936, issued to Highway 

Motor Freight Lines, Inc., authorlzlng an exclusively interstate operation, using not more than thirty-nine trucks. The 

certificate contains the following: 

"RESTRICTH) ENTIRELY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF 

COMMODITIES MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FROM 

POINTS BEYOND THE STATE LINE TO POINTS WITHIN 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND FROM POINTS WITHIN THE 

STATE OF TEKAS TO POINTS BEYOND THE STATE LINE; 

BUT PROHIBITED FROM MOVING ANY COMMODITIES EITHER 

INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE, BETWEEN ANY TWO TEXAS 

POINTS. 

"THIS CERTIFICATE SHALL BE LIMITED AND RESTRICTED 

TO NOT MCEEDING TWO ROUND TRIPS PER WEEK OVER 

ANY OF THE FOLLOWING HIGHWAYS: 

"State Highways Nos. 1, l-A, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 

9, lo 12, 13 

43, 64, 71, 86 

14, 15, 16, 20, 24, 26, 31, 35, 40, 

and 19 as far South as Huntsville 

and no further, 45, 156, 114 and 121. 

"Federal Highways Nos. 66, 67, 69, 77, 277 and 

370 from Bowie to Amarillo." 

In your letter of June 7, 1940, you request our opinion 

in response to the following questton: 

'Does the Railroad Commisslon of Texas have 

the authority to restrict motor carriers operating wholly in interstate commerce to the extent of prohibiting said interstate carriers from 

serving intermediate points?" 
- 

Honorable James E. Kilday, page 2 O-1843 

To make your question clear you offer the illustration 

that the port of Houston receives a-large,vblume of freight 

moving byboat from the Atlantic seaboard, and it is there 

unloaded and immediately placed on motor vehicles for trans~ 

portation to Dallas and other Texas cities, points of original 

destliiation. You mention that this freight universally hasbeen accepted as freight moving in interstate commerce, which 

Is undoubtedly correct. Highway Motor Frel ht Lines, Inc., 

desires to receive'such freight at Houston 7 and other Texas 

cities under similar circumstances), transport the same over 

highways described in the certificate and'.deliver it at points 

in Texas on such highways. As an illustration;'in a purely 

interstate transaction, it would pick up goods at Houston and 

deliver the same at Dallas wFthout deviating from the highways 

named In its certificate. 

The Highway Motor Freight Lines, Inc., holds a certificate from the Interstate Commerce Commtssion which would 

authorize the operation so far as that body is concerned. The 

validity of the restriction prohibiting the carri.er.'from moving any commodities in interstate commerce between any two Texas 

points is thus brought into question. 

Since the Federal Congress enacted the Motor Carrier 

Act of 1935, 49 U.S.C.A., Sec. 301, et seq., the Railroad Commission of'Texas cannot concern itself with questions oi~public 

necessity and convenience with respect to purely Interstate 

motor carriers, those questions being within the field occupiedby the Congress. However, in the case of Thompson vs. McDonald, 

95 Fed. (2d) 937, certiorari clenled, it was held that the preservation and safety of the highways themselves are still within the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission, and that this 

body may still deny the use of the highways to an interstate 

carrier when it is sufficiently shown that the preservation of 

the highways and safety of the traveling public would be endangered by the added traffic burden. As you know, the Austin 

and. Waco Courts of Civil Appeals have followed that decision 

in a number of cases, in some of which writs of error were 

denied. 

The certificate in question authorizes only the carrying of freight in interstate commerce from a point within this 

State to a point without its boundaries, and vice versa. This, 

of course, is a narrower authority than if the carrier were 

allowed to handle any and all Interstate shipments regardless 

of the points where it mfght receive or deliver the same. Its 

use of the highways is correspondingly less. In granting the 

certificate upon such terms as it contained, the Railroad Commission necessarily found that the highways traversed, could 
Honorable James E. Kilday, page 3 o-1843 

properly handle the narrower service. On the other hand, 

there is absent any finding that the highways wouldbe able 

to withstand the added burden of the heavier traffFcwhlch 

would~~'follow from the~broader authority, - that Is, a certificate authorizing an unrestricted interstate operation 

over all the hIghways described. 

Our opinion follows that the RaIlroadCommission has 

the authority to enforce the restriction contained In the 

certificate. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Glenn R. Lewis 

Glenn R. Lewis 

Assistant 

-GRL:LW:wc 

APPROVED JUN 18, 1940 

s/Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman