We are left to concludethat other considerations than hi&way conditionsand trafficsafetymust have producedthe attemptedreatrictlnn to the use of trucksowned by Csawford. As we understandthe opinion in the McDonaldcase, aupra,the RailroadCommission'sjurisdictionover purely interstatemotor carrieroperationsis limitedto considerations of hi&my conditionsand trafficsafety. It is our opinionthereforethat the restrictioncontainedin this certificateis void ~inaofar as :t >rouldprevent the use of leasedtrucks. Your question& (a) is answeredIn the affirmative.
B::- the above we do not mean to say that mder no circumstancescould the Cxxxiaaionrestrict an interstateoperationto trucks owned by the certificate holder. In aome instancesit may be that it could. As an illustration; auqpoae in a given case the Commissionshouldnot limit the number of i--ucks ?rhichcould be used, but believedthat if the carriershouldbe permitted to operatt leasedtrucks therewould bs certainseasonsdur?ngwhich it ?.iouldglut the highwayswith leasedtrucks,believingalso that any such aenaonalbua'inens wouldnotwarrant the carrierin purchasingsuch equipnsnt. Urder such circumstances, it is not at all certainthct the Cormniasion m?&t not be able to protectthe highwaysagainstsuch undue ,trsffic b: siqly requiringthat the carrieruse only equipmantamed b:, i,t.
Our nn%er.toquestion1 (b) is that such platesand identificationcards no::be lawfullytransferredwith the Commission'spermission. However, c, .
RailroadCommissionof Texas, page 3 O-3107
such permissionmust be obta:;ned as is customarilydone vhen it is desired to retire one vehicleand >ubc,titute another.
Answeringquestion2, it is our opinionthat the Commission,shouldrecoaize suck leases,providedthe leasedequipmentis in compliancewith the stetutesand rules and regulationsof the RailroadCommission. In other words, the Con?nlssion should permit the use of leasedequipmentif it would authorizethe use of the same equipmentwere the same owned by Crawford.
You also requestour opinion in responseto the followingquestion:
"(3) Does the owner of e Texas InterstateCommon ZarrierCertifi- cate have su.thoT*i~ty, so far as this Commissionis concerned,to operateas a "broker'as that term is used in the FederalMotor Carrier Act, if such owner be authorizedby the Interstete'CommerceCommission to act as a 'broker'es that term is used in said FederalAct?"
The licensin::of interstatetransportationbrokers is providedfor in Xec. 311, Title 49, U. S. C. A. It is thereinprovidedthat it shall he unlawful for a broker to "employany carrierby motor vehiclewho or whichisnot the lawfulholaer of an effectivecertificateor permit"issuedb> the Interstate CommerceCommission. As alreadynoted herein,such interstatecrlrricrs must also have certificatesor permitsfrom the RailroadCommission. evidencinga findir.gthat the highwaystraversedby them will stand the trafficecaLsed by the operation. If the carrierwho performsthe actual transportstion at the instanceof the broker has no authorityfrom the RailroadComm5.ssi.on, then, of course,the operationis unlawfuland both the carrierand broker are violstin the motor carrierstatide. But, we are of the o?irionthat the Commissionmsy not interferein the actionsof a broker, licensedunder t&e Federal rtatute,in his arrangingfor freightto be transportedpureb: in iuu4siiatecommerce,where the actual tronsportatioi?is to be perforE? b;~s carrierholain,a certificateissued by the Railrood~ Co?xfiiss~.on edhorizing use of the hi&vsys, an2 the act of transportalio~itself i.S within.the certificate. Yours very truly
ATTOIQm GElEPALOF TEXAS
GRL:ob By s/ Glenr.9. Lewis Assistant APPROVEDMAY 21, 19&l
s/ GroverSellers : FIFST ASSISTAX ATTOREEYGENERAL By EWB CHAIRW.1~