THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

GERALD C. MANN 

AUSTIN 11, TEXAR 

Honorable James E. Kilday 

Director, Motor Transportation Division 

Railroad Commission of Texas 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-1264 

Re: Whether under facts stated J. H. 

Robinson Truck Lines may be rerouted. 

We received your letter of August 10, 1939, wherein you submit to 

us the following facts: 

The J. H. Robinson Truck Lines now holds and operates a certificate 

of convenience and necessity from Houston to Corpus Christi over 

State Highway No. 3 from Houston to Rosenburg, over State 

No. 12 from Rosenburg to Victoria, over State Hi hway No. 

Hi hway 

% 

12 % from 

Victoria to Sinton, 1 from Sinton to 

Corpus Christi. 

and over State Highway No. 

over this route. 

He is authorized to serve all intermediate points 

especially between 

The route thus travelled is a very congested one, 

Houston and Rosenburg. The certificate holder 

has requested of the Commission a re-routing in part of his line 

which would authorize him to operate as follows: All through shipments between Houston and Corpus Christi and vice versa would be 

carried over State Highway Non. 35, known as the "Hug the Coast Highway," and no services would be rendered over said State Highway No. 

35 at any point between Houston and Corpus Christi. He would retain his old route only for the purpose of serving points intermediate between Houston and Corpus Christi on that route and would 

not carry through shipments between Houston and Rosenburg over the 

old route. You are advised that State Highway No. 35 is now traveled 

only about half as much as the route over which Robinson now goes. 

It is also represented that the distance between Houston and Corpus 

Christi over State Highway No. 35 is about 26 miles farther than 

the old route travelled by Robinson, although he will be able to 

make the distance about an hour and half quicker, due probably to 

the fact that on the new route he will not be stopping to serve intermediate points. 

The Railroad Commission will hold a hearing upon such application 

for a re-routing but at such hearing it is proposed to, exclude and 

and hear no evidence upon questions of public necessity and convenience and the inadequacy of the existing transportation facilities 
Honorable James K. Kilday, page 2 O-1264 

between Houston and Corpus Christi. You request our opinion as 

to whether the Railroad Commission would have the authority, after 

such a hearing, and if the above facts are found to be true, to 

grant the application. 

In the case of Railroad Commission vs. Red Arrow Freight Lines, 96 

S. W. (2d) 735, before the Austin Court of Civil Appeals, the facts 

involved were briefly there: H.H. Lawler became the owner by purchase of two certificates of convenience and necessity, one to 

operate from Houston to San Antonio and intermediate points and the 

other from San Antonio to the Rio Grande Valley via Edinburg and 

serving intermediate points. He filed an application before the 

Railroad Commission for a so-called re-routing to permithim to go 

directly from Houston to Edinburg without serving intermediate 

points .on that route. His theory was that he could already haul 

freight from Houston to Edinburg and points beyond and vice vsrsa, 

going by San Antonio, 

volved. 

and that no new service was, therefore, inIt appeared in that case, however, that the new route was 

about 120 miles shorter than the one by way of San Antonio and that 

his service between Houston and Edinburg would be siiortened abctiut 

30 hours. Over the protest of competing carriers, the Railroad 

Commission limited the hearing and its findings to the adequacy of 

the Highways over which the re-routing was sought. The trial court 

eat aside the order of the Commission granting such re-routing and 

the Commission appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, That court 

affirmed the action of the trial court but its opinion was based 

purely upon the proposition that the new route was so much shorter 

and quicker that in fact the re-routing operated to inaugurate a 

new direct service between Houston and Edinburg and thence into the 

Valley, and that on account thereof, the Commission erred in not 

requiring Lawler to show the need of such additional service and in 

not also requiring him to show the inadequacy of existing facilities. 

Since the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was based upon the 

reasoning that the change of route would shorten Lawler's traveling distance to substantially and make his service so much quicker 

as in fact to constitute the inauguration of a new service, we believe it may be clearly inferred that the court's action would have 

been different if the route had not been substantially shortened 

and the service substantially quickened. In the case before us the 

new route will be 26 miles longer than the old one, We do not believe that the mere fact that he will be able to make the new distance about an hour and a half quicker than the old one, on account of not stopping to serve intermediate points, is substantial 

enough a change as to constitute a new service. Subsection (c) 

and the first paragraph of subsection (d) of Section 4 of Article 

qllb, Revised Civil Statutes, read as follows: 

"(c) The Commission is further authorized and empowered and 

it shall be its duty to supervise and regulate motor carriers 

in all matters affecting the relationship between such motor 

carriers and the shipping public that may be necessary in the 

interest of the public. ' 
Honorable James E. Kilday, page 3 O-1264 

"(d) The Commission is further authorized and empowered and 

it shall be its dut 

K 

to supervise and regulate motor carriers 

in all matters whet er specifically mentioned herein or not 

so as to carefully preserve, foster and regulate transportation and to relieve the existing and all future undue burdens 

on the highways arising by reason of the use of the highways 

by motor carriers, adjusting and administering its regulations 

in the interest of the public." 

We do not believe that the advantages in competition to be gained 

by Robinson over competing carriers would be sufficient to off-set 

the right and power of the Commission to shift a part of the traffic from the over-burdened route heretofore travelled by Robinson 

to the new route. Our answer to your question is, therefore, in 

the affirmative. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

BY 

Glenn R. Lewis 

Assistant 

GRL;N;ml 

APPROVED AUG. 19, 1939 

GERALD C. MANNA 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS