Record No. 3186
In the Supren1e Court of Appeals of Virginia at Richmond
VIRGINIA ST AGE LINES, INC.,
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF, VIRGINIA, ETC.
FROM 1'F1 I~ S'J'ATE COR.P OR,\ TlON COMMISSION OF VIBOlNIA,
RULE 14. ~5. N Ul\lBER OF COPms ·1·0 n~ P rum AND D ELIVF.Rl•:O TO Orros I~G Cou~sm.. Twenty <.:opiC>s of earb brief shall be filed with the cl('rk of the eourt, and nt least two copies mailed or de livered to opposing counsC'l 011 or before the clay on wltid1 the brief is fi led. ~.G. S1 zr-: A~'i) 'fYPF. . Bric>fs 8-hall lie nine inehes in length ::md six inches in width, so as to <·onforrn in dimensions to t he printc•d re('ord, a nd ~lrnll he pl'intt1 d in type not less in size, ns to height a nd wid U1, than the• type in wltieli the reeonl is printc•tl. The record umubc>r of the. case and 1rnmes. of coun sel shall he pr inted OH 1hL' front <:'O\'C' t' of all brief~. :i\I. B. \\TNl'TS, Clerk. Court opens at S :30 a. m. ; Adjourns at 1 :00 p. m. 11, VA-JObfo RULE 14-BRIEFS 1. Form and contents of a ppellant's brief. T h e ope n ing brief o f t he appellan t ( or the petit ion for appeal wl!c u adopted as the opening brief) shall con tain : (a) A s u bjec t inc.lex and tal1lc oi c ita t ions w ith cas es alphabetically arranged. Citations of V irginia cas es mus t refer to t he Virginia Repor b and, in addition, m ay r d ility that t he othe r side may q ues tion the s ta te ment. \\ hen : the fac ts :.re conu·ovcrted it s hou ld be so stated . ( d ) A r g ument i11 s upl',>-or t of t h e p ositio u of appella nt. T h e brief , hall be sigued by a t leas t one a tto rney p ract icing in th is cou r t. giving his add res,. The a ppellan t mar adopt the pl't ition ior appeal as Ii i~ open ing br ief by so s ta ting in t he petit ion, o r by giving to oppllsi11g co tll1scl wr it ten notict! o f s uc h intention within fi ,·e d a ys of the r eceipt by ap1Jella 11 t o f t he printed r ecord, a nd by fil ing a c upy of su ch notice with th<' clerk of the court. :--/o a lJ.,gcd error not s pecifi ed in the opening hri,· f or petitio n fur a ppeal s hall be aclmitted as a ground fo r a rgument by a1,pc1lant . ' INDEX TO PETITION Record No. 3186 Page Statement of Facts and Proceedings...... 2* The Issue in· this Case...... 9 * Jurisdiction ...... : ...... 10* Assignments of Error...... 11 * Prayer and Conclusion...... 11 *. IN THE Supreme Court ·of Appeals of Virginia AT RICHMOND. Record No. 3186 VIRGINIA STAGE LINES, INCORPORATED, Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT THE RELATION OF STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, ETC., Ap pellee PETITION FOR APPEAL. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the -Su preme Court of Appeals of Virginia: Your petitioner, Virginia Stage Lines, Incorporated, (a cor~ poration organized and existing under the laws of Virginia with its principal office in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia) respect fully represents that it is aggrieved by a final order entered by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia on the 12th day of June, 1946, in Case No. 8229 entitled "Commonwealth of Vir ginia, at the relation of State Corporation Commission in the .matter of application of Virginia Stage Lines,· Incorporated, 2* for a certificate of public *convenience and necessity" as a common carrier of passengers between Farmville, Virginia, and Clarksville, Virginia, via U. S. Highway No. 15,-a distance of approximately 54 miles, which order denied said application. Duly certified transcript of the record in this case is presented herewith. 2 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia The order. complained .of was not entered by the entire Com mission but only by Commissioners Downs and Apperson, since Commissioner Hooker did not participate in the hearing or de cision in this case. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Stage Lines") is the holder and operator of numerous certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, authorizing common carrier passenger service by motor on the public highways of Virginia, via various routes as specified in said certificate. Among the routes over which Stage Lines operates as a duly certificated common car rier is Route No. 29 from the Virginia-D. C. line to Charlottes ville; thence via Route 613 from Charlottesville to Scottsville; thence via Route 20 from Scottsville to Dillwyn; thence via Route 15 fr.om Dillwyn to Farmville; and also via Route 49 from Clarksville to Virgilina at the Virginia-North Carolina line. The route involved in the certificate applied for (Route No. 15 be- 3* tween Farmville and Clarksville) would be *a connecting link in the operations of Stage Lines from the Virginia-D. C. line to the Virginia-North Carolina line. It is admitted that Stage Lines is an experienced and capable common carrier pas senger motor bus operator, with ample resources. The application of Stage Lines was duly filed with the State Corporation Commission September 8, 1945, with all necessary exhibits and with payment of the prescribed filing fee. By order of the Commission the application was set for hearing on October 3, 1945. Due notice of the application and time and place of hearing was properly served in ample time on all interested parties as :required by law and by the rules of the Commission. . At the. hearing before the Commission applicant produced · a large number of representative witnesses from Farmville and Clarksville and various intermediate poin~, all of whom testified in favor of the application and convincingly demonstrated the existence of public convenience and necessity for the proposed operation. The only objection to the Stage Lines' application was offered by Atlantic-Greyhound Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Greyhound"). The objection of Greyhound was formally filed in writing at the hearing and was based upon two points, stated in such written objection as follows:- " (1) The ·proposed operation cannot be justified on grounds of public convenience and necessity. 4 * "(2) The public convenience and necessity *over the route which the applicant proposes to operate between Keysville Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 3 and Barnes Junction is being adequately served by the present certificate holder, Atlantic Greyhound Corporation." C, By argument and by cross examination throughout the hearing and in the brief filed thereafter Greyhound's counsel stoutly con tended that there was no public convenience and necessity for the proposed passenger motor carrier line between Farmville and Clarksville. (On June 12, 1946, however,-which was the same day on which the Commission entered its final order denying Stage Lines' application,-Greyhound filed with the Commission its own application for a common carrier certificate over this identical route between Farmville and Clarksville, and alleged in its application that such an operation was justified by public convenience and necessity.) Stage Lines replied to Greyhound's second contention (viz. that the granting of Stage Lines' application would be contrary to the law and judicial policy of Virginia since it would be grant ing an application over the same route on which Greyhound al ready held a certificate) by pointing out that neither the law nor the construction placed thereon by the Comµlission and by your honorable court has any application to this Stage Lines1 applica tion because Stage Lines did not propose to operate over any route on which Greyhound held a certificate, but rather on an 5* entirely different route upon which Greyhound *held no cer tificate whatsoever. Stage Lines' application was for a certificate between Farm~ ville and Clarksvil~e via U.S. Route No. 15. Greyhound did not hold any certificate whatsoever on Route No. 15 between those points or between any intermediate points. The certificate upon which Greyhound relied was, as stated in its written objection, Certificate No. P-1089 under which Greyhound was authorized to transport passengers, etc. by motor vehicle as a comm.on car rier between Richmond and the Virginia-North Carolina line via U.S. Highway No. 360. Stage Lines did not propose to operate over any portion whatsoever of Route 360 but entirely on Route 15. It is quite true that Route 360 and :Route 15 parallel each other for approximately 18 miles, (viz. between Keysville and Barnes Junction) but it is submitted that the fact that two roµtes may use the same strip of highway for a few miles ·doe.~ not in any way destroy or impair the identity and independence of the separate specific routes. . A glance at the officia, Virginia State Highway Map (intro duced in evidence at the hearing and incorporated in the appellate record as an exhibit) will show that the highway between Keys ville and Barnes Junction is.marked by the State Highway Com- 4 Supreme Com·t of Appeals of Virginia, mission as being used by two separate outes, namely Route 6* No. 15 and Route No. 360. Likewise, *a further glance at the State Highwtfy Map will show that in various parts of Virginia the same strip of highway is used by more than one route in numerous cases. It is submitted that the only prohibition found in the law of Virginia against the granting of duplicate franchises refers to a duplicate franchise "aver the same route". If the General Assem bly of Virginia had intended to enact a prohibition such as Grey hound contended for and such as the Commi:;:sion by its order and supporting opinion had adopted, the General Assembly would have used the word "highway'' rather than the word "route." In other words, the prohibition would have read:- . ''No certificate shall be granted to an applicant proposing to operate over the s. me highway as any holder of ·a certificate" etc. . From a reading of the Commission's opinion it is quite apparent that the Commission has confused the terms of the present law with the terms of what the law used to be. Prior to the amend -ment of 1932 and the further amendment of 1936, the Motor Vehicle Carrier Law of Virginia contained certain restrictive pro :visions and also some open competition provisions. However, .the old law was based entirely on ''tp.e territory" involved in the pending application and being served by any existing certificate .holder. The present law (since 1932) has radically changed this situation and eliminated the word "territory" and has substi- 7 * tuted in place thereof a very plain and definite *restriction . against certain duplicate franchises. This restriction and prohibition, however, does not in any sense apply to "territory,'' nor does it in any sense apply to "highway," but applies only to a .propos~d operation over the "route" of an existing certificate holder. The situation in this case will be more clearly apparent by reference to a sketch attached to and made a part of this petition. In its supporting opinion the Commission took the position that it had no right to·grant·Stage Lines' application in view of the construction of the Motor Carrier Law laid down in the recent .case of Virginia Stages Lines, Inc. v. Commonwealth, etc., 185 Va. 390. The situation in that case was fundamentally and entirely different. In hat case Stage Lines was the existing certificate holder authorized to act as a passeng~r common carrier between Halifax and South Boston over Route 501. The applicant in that case, over the objection of the certificate holder, had been granted a certificate to operate between identically the same points and over identically the· same route, No. 501. Obviously, the decision in that ca~e might have been entirely different if the applicant had Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealt~. 5 proposed to operate over a different route rather than over the same route. The Com.mission's order denying Stage Lines' application as signed no reasons whatsoever, but from its supporting opin- 8* ion, filed some time thereafter, it appears *that the Com mission agreed with Stage Lines that the public convenience and necessity of the proposed operation had been amply justified by applicant; but felt that the granting of Stage Lines' applica- . tion would constitute "an invasion of the territory" of Greyhound. As has already been pointed out, the law of Virginia no longer recognizes any such thing as the "territory" of a motor bus operator, but recognizes only the certificated "route" over which a carrier has a certificate to operate. · In its opinion the Commission also goes entirely outside the record in this case to point out that on June 12, 1946 (the same date on which the order was entered denying Stage Lines' applica tion) Greyhound had filed "its application for a certificate over the same route applied for by Stage Lines herein." From this fact, the Commission erroneously concluded that at the time of the entry of the final order denying Stage Lines' application) "the Commission had before it the application of Greyhound, as well as that of Stage Lines, for a certificate of convenience and neces sity over the route from Farmville to Clarksville via U. S. High way No. 15." While the official record does not show at what hour of the day the Commission's order denying Stage Lines' ap plication was actually entered, a consideration of the factual situation would make it reasonable to assume that the Com mission had decided upon its order at least a few hours, if not a day prior to the same having been transcribed and signed 9* and formally entered. *But even if the Greyhound applica- tion had been filed on the morning of the 12th and the Stage Lines' order had not been entered until some time later on the same day, even so it cannot fairly be said that the Commission was in position of having before it two applicants for the same route· at the same time. The facts are that the application of Stage Lines had been fully presented and developed and argued whereas Greyhound's application had not even been heard at all; no notice thereof had been given to any of the interested parties and the hearing thereon was not until over a month later, to-wit July 17, 1946. The Commission further stated in its supporting opinion that Greyhound had declared its willingness to render whatever service the Commission found to be necessary on the route. A reference to the record will slaow that in the entire Stage Lines proceeding Greyhound never offered to render service as a passenger common carrier on the route applied for by Stage Lines (viz. Farmville to Clarksville via U.S. Route .15) but only offered to perform such service on the small distance between Keysville and Barnes Junction. 6 ·supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE. The issue in this case is a very narrow one but it is never- 10 * theless very important. If the word "route" found *in Sec- tion 6-c of the Virginia Motor Carrier Act, is to be interpreted and applied as if it were synonymous with the word "territory" and the word "highway," then the decision of the Commission was correct and should be upheld. In such case~ however, it would be incumbent upon the Commission to vacate a large num ber of motor carrier operations throughout th~ Commonwealth where competing carriers have been granted certificates operating in the same territory and over the same highway but over differ ent routes. Likewise, it would result in a very serious restriction upon service to the public in view of the increasing tendency of the State Highway Commission to locate a multiple number of ro.utes over portions of the same highway. On the other hand, if the recognized rules of statutory con struction are to be applied, and if the General Assembly is to be assumed to have meant what it said when it discarded the word "territory" and substituted therefor the word "route," then the Commission's decision was based upon an erroneous construction of the law and should, accordingly, be reversed. JURISDICTION. Stage Lines is advised that the Constitution and Statute law of Virginia afford it an appeal of right in this matter (Con- 11 * stitution Sec. 156-d; Virginia Code Sec. 4097(y) 13(j) ). ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR. . Petitioner alleges that the State Corporation Commission erred in its final order of June 12, 1946, by:- (1) Denying the application of Virginia Stage Lines, Incor porated, for the certificate applied for. (2) Holding that the law prohibits the granting of a certificate in the "territory" of an existing certificate holder. (3) Holding that the law prohibits granting a certificate where the proposed route of the applicant traverses in part the same highway as that used by an existing certificate holder on a differ ent route. PRAYER and CONCLUSION. For the reasons hereinbefore indicated and for other errors apparent on the face of the record, petitioner prays that an appeal Virgiriia Sta:ge Lines, Inc~, v .. Commonwealth. 7 may be granted from said order of June 12, 1946, entered by the State ·Corporation Commission as aforesaid, and that the same .may ·be reviewed and reversed, and that all proper and appro priate relief may be :granted to petitioner by your honorable court. . 12* Petitloner'·s opening brief will be filed within *the time - required ·by the rules of the Court. A copy of this petition was mailed on tbe 10th day of October., 1946, to Oscar L. Shewmake, Esq.1 Counsel for Atlantic-Grey :hound Corporation, the objector in this case, and to the Attorney General of Virginia, ·and to tbe .State Corporation Comri:iission -of Virginia. Respectfully ·submitted, . VIRGINIA STAGE LINES, INCORPORATED By John J .. Wicker, Jrw, lits Counsel . .John J. Wicker, Jr., Attorn~y at Law, Mutual Building, Richmond, Virginia The undersigned attorney at law, practicing in the .Supreme ·Court of Appe~ls of Virginia, hereby certifies that in his opinion. there is error in the order of the State Corporation Commission .JOHN .J. WICKER, JR. Received October 11, 1946. M. B. WATTS, Clerk. October 15, 1946. Appeal awarded by the Court. Bond $500. M. B. W.. ' '. •, ··-~.-4!;.< . .. ••· -= ~ ~s~~ -~ ~oute #1.B, over which Va~ ... Stage tines; Inc. prop~seu ~ to operate. Greyhoun~h!:8 route. . ' no certific9te over -~~~ f 9 "" .• Q 0 = ·o .o o.. 'l\~- 0 ·11ed for Cvtz. fl'om '1'hFa~ ~f! ;:Pclarksville !!!.• "=v.i. ) ot involve any . Route f15 ~!v~r ovei- Greyhound.~~ opera£ on w (?iz. Richmond certificated.route #360) to ~tlnvtlle via Route 0 0 0 Q 0 . • 0 • • 0 -~ • p • • .. ll!i·'(~ Virg·inia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. RECORD COMMONWEALTH. OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and nec€s• sity under the Virginia Motor Carrier Act of 1936 (Chapter 129, Acts of Assembly, 1936) CASE No. 8229 FILE No. 6326 To the State Corporation Commission, Richmond, Va. Application of VIRGINIA STAGE LINES, INCORPO~ RATED for a· certificate as a Common Carrier for. the handling of Newspaper, express, mail ·and· baggage along with passengers by motor vehicle. Full name of applicant VIRGINIA STAGE LINES, INCOR PORATED. Business address (street and number) Fourth and Water Streets. City, or Town, and County: Charlottesville, Albemarle_. Applicant is Corporation doing business under the trade name of Vir~nia Trailways. . If corporation or partnership, give names and addresses of officers of corporation, or all partners. If corporation give name of State under laws of which it is incorporated; and if partnership attach true and exact copy of partnership agreement under which the business is or will be conducted, marked Exhipit X. S. A. Jessup, President, Charlottesville, Virginia; Philip S. Jessup, Vice-President, Washington, D. C.; Claude A. Jessup, Secretary-Treasurer, Charlottesville, Vir- ginia. · Applicant desires to engage in the following operations (Give full and complete description of route or routes.) From Farmville, Virginia to Clarksvil~e, Virginia over US High way 15, ·serving all intermediate points and return over same route. No passengers transported whose origin is Keysville and destination Barnes Junction and/or intermediate points between such points or the reverse. Passengers will be transported whose origin is Keysville or Barnes Junction or intermediate points· when destined to points beyond Keysville or Barnes Junction in either direction or the reverse. 10 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia Any additional information as to route to be attached and marked Exhibit A. . . ' CERTIFICATE------ ISSUED------(over) Applicant attaches, marked Exhibit B, the proposed time sched ules, in duplicate. Applicant attaches, in duplicate, marked Exhibit C, the num ber of vehicles proposed to oe operated, with a statement for each vehicle containing the following description: Kind...:._Make-Motor Number-Maker's Number-Type Rated Capacity-Length-Width-Height-Number of Seats; and statement of the State Highway Commission that the law applicable as to the proposed route or routes has been complied with as to size, weight and type of vehicles to be used. Applicant attaches, marked Exhibit D, complete statement of financial condition and ability to operate route or routes if cer tificate is granted. Applicant attaches, marked Exhibit E, tariff of freight rates or passenger fares, whichever may be applicable, proposed to be ap plied if application is granted. Applicant attaches, marked Exhibit F, list of all persons, firms, or corporations, now furnishing similar services by means of motor vehicles, steam or electric railways, or boat lines, between any of the points or along any portion of the route proposed to be served, and has indicated on said Exhibit what part of route is . affected in each case; and will furnish on or prior to date of hear ing evidence of having made proper service· of notice of applica tion and date of hearing upon such persons, firms, or corporations at least twenty (20) days prior to date of hearing of this applica tion as set by the Commission. Applicant asserts that the granting of certificate applied for is in tlie public interest and should be granted for the following reasons: , At the present time, there is no public transportation facilities over the entire portion of this route and this application is for the purpose of providing intrastate service to points between Farm ville and Clarksville, Virginia, which at the present time has no public transportation except on the part of the route between Keysville and Barnes Junction, Virginia. Additional pertinent information may be attached to applica tion. Applicant agrees to furnish the service proposed within thirty days after the granting of the certificate under this application, Virginia Stage Lines, Inc.,1 v. Commonwealth. 11 runless permission is .obtained from the Commission to posq><>ne the beginning of operation. Applicant agrees to comply with the provisions of the Virginia Motor Carrier Act of 1936 (Chapter 1'29, Acts of Assembly, 1936), :and with all applicable rules and regulations prescribed by the Commission in accordance therewitb. (Signature) VIRGINIA STAGE LINES., INCORPORATED By S. A. Jessup Title President Dated at Charlottesville th1S 22nd d~y ·of August, 1945. STATE OF VIRGINIA, County of Albemarle ss. Personally appeared before me, Glovena Cason, '8i Notary Pub lic in and for the State and County aforesaid S. A. Jessup who, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is* President, appli cant in the above proceeding; that he has read the foregoing ·application and know& the. contents thereof, and that the state ments made there1n 11,l'e true to the best ,of his knowledge and belief. My com.mission expires on the 9th day of July, 1949. Given under my hand this, the.22nd day of August, 1945. Glovena Cason, Notary Public. *li applicant is a. corporation, insert "president of the" or "secretary af the." U nrm or partnership insert "one of the." · · . , 'I page 2 } EXHIBIT B CLASS ''AH TIME SCHEDULE of VIRGINIA STAGE LINES, INCORPORATED Between · F ARMVILLE-CLARKSVJLLE~ VA, , READ DOWN READ UP DLY DLY DLY DLY DliY-· DLY PM PM AM AM.. PM PM 530 1201 600 Lv. CHARLOTTESVILLE .. , .... ,.: .. VA. Ar. 1015 416 940 615 1245 645 Lv: Scottsville ...... VA. Lv. 935. 336 poo 745 S15 815 Ar. FARMVILLE ...... -, ... VA. Lv. 800 200 · 730 750 220 820 Lv. F;\RMVILLE ...... , ... VA. Ar. 750 150 120 800 230 830 Lv. Kingsville ...... VA. Lv. 740 140 110 830 300 900 Lv. Keysville* ...... , ...... , .... , .... VA. Lv, 710 110 640 900 330 930 Lv. Wylllesburg* ...... , , ...... VA. Lv. 640 1240 610. 906 336 936 Lv. Barnes Junction* .•...... YA. Lv. 634 1234 604 914 344 944 Lv. Red Oak ...... ,, ...... , ...... VA. Lv. 626 12!6 556 940 410 1010 Ar. CLARKSVILLE ...... , ..... , ... VA. Lv, 600 J2()j 630 NOTE: All italic figures denote PM times; others AM. - . *No passengers transported whose origin is Keysville and destination Barnes Junction and/or intermediate points between such pom~ or the reverse. Passengers will be transported whose origin is Key~lle or Bal_'D,CS JunctioQ or tnwtmeciiate po~ms wnen Worsham ...... : .. VA. 020 020 020 ct).~ Redd Shop (Va. 677) .. ; ...... •...... VA. 020 020 020 020 Jct. US 15-Va. 647 ...... VA. 025 020 020 020 020 ..~ Jct. US 15-Va. 634 ...... •...... VA. 030 025 020 020 020 020 N. & W. :Et l{ Crossing ...... ·...... VA. 035 030· 025 025 020 020 '020 .... Prine~ Edward-Charlotte .Co .. Line ...... VA. 035 030 025 025 020 020 020 020 ..... Cl.) ~~y_s~e...... , ...... ; .. VA. 045 040 0_35 0.30 025 020 020 020. 020 .. . Onttlirio (V~. 622) ...... : ...... VA. 050 045 040 040 035 025 025 020 020*020 Wallace'~ .Stqre (Va ..623) ...... VA. 055 050 045 Ot5 040 030 030 025 020*020 .For.t ).v.Iit~hell Rd. (Ya. 630)...... VA. 0.60 05·5 0_50 050 045 040 035 030 025*020 .. . Jct. US 1:5-Ya. ~7 ...... ,...... VA. 0.6·5 060 055 050 045 040 035 030 030 *020 .. . Jc.t.. US 15-V tt. ·.6.2.6...... ,. :; ,...... VA. 010 065 060 055 050 045 040 035 035 *020 . . . f Wylliesb~g ...... VA. 01'5 070. 065 060 055 050 045 040 040*030 . . . ~ .Bar.ne~ Junction ...... -~ ...... VA. 080 075 070 070 065 055 050 045 045*040*030 i Red Oak ...... VA. 085 080 075 075 070 060 060 055 050 045 035 ,.. 00 85 08 ·1/ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 0 ~tarfa otte- ·· M ec· ·kl· en · b.urg · · · c' o. · me...... i !". gi~ g~o 0 885 08i o~g0 g~g g~·g, g~g· ;gig: · g:g 8!: ~ Jct. US 15-Va. 700 ...... VA. 100 095 090 085 080 075 070 065 ~065 066 050 :;;_ Bluestone Creek ...... VA. 105 100 095 095 090 085 080 07;5 ;010 065 060 ~ Jct. US 15-Va. 49 ...... VA. 110 105 100 095 090 085 080 075 075 065 060 CLARKSVILLE ...... VA. 115 110 105 100 095 090 085 080 :080 070 065 .t" ~ E.al • f page 4 ~ Farmville-Clarksville Schedule-Continued .....-,. 0 _... ~ co ~..... ~ I-; C\l b1) ¢0 s... ~ ...._,,~ ::, 0 s: ~ ~ ...._,, t,.. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ --d C\l a:> t-- .a:, -.::I" -.::I" co ::::f rn a:> ~ CD e-+- J-4 iz 0 s.... •.-C 0 • oS d ~ 0 d .+,:> -~ a:>~ C,) ~ ~ 10 > •(D > I bO Q I >I ~ ,.q s... ,Q ~ .a:> lt:) 0 ~ lt:) I •.-C lt:) I'll 1'-1 '"'"1 ::, ::, 'l""'4 ,t"i Q) ~ ,.Q Jo-:, .2s i-JI 'l""'4 =0 .m ~ 0 00 00 Cl2 fl2 ~ ...... +,:> » 00 00 tr m ~ p p a:> .Yl s... rt::, c.:> ~ =:;::$ .::, - ~ ..,;; .Q;) +-i ~ 0 ; - C;) 0 - ~o 0 :C:) ~ ~ ~ ~ j 00 ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ iz -~ ,Q Fort Mitchell Rd. (Va. 630) ...... , .... VA. .: Jct. US 15-Va. 47 ...... VA. ~ Jct. US 15-Va. 626 ...... '? •..••.• VA. a Wylliesburg ...... ·...... VA. 0a- Barnes Junction ...... VA. *025 *020 *020 *020 *020 .. . s Red Oak ...... VA. 030 025 025 020 020 020 .. . § Laconia ...... VA. .040 035 030 025 020 020 020 .. . -~ ~ Charlotte-Mecklenburg Co_. Line ...... , ...... VA. 040 035 035 030 025 020 020 020 .. . SD ~ Jet. US 15-Va. 700 ...•... : ...... _ VA.. 045 040 040 035 080 020 020 020 020 ... . P"' Bluestone Creek ...... ·...... VA. 055 050 045 040 035 030 025 020 020 020 .. .. Jct. US 15-Va. 49 ...... VA. 055 050 045 040 035 030 025 020 020 020 020 ... CLARKSVILLE ...... ~VA. 060 055 050 045 040 035 030 025 020 020 020 020 ... c.n :f6. Supreme Court of Appeals ·of Virginia- page ? EXHIBIT F ATLANTIC GREYHOUND CORPORATION operates on the· route covered by this application from .Keysville, Virginia to Barnes Junction, Virginia. There'is no other public transportation along the route covered by instant application. page 6. ~ EXHIBIT B VIRGINIA STAGE LINES,. INCORPORATED HAS ITS BALANCE SHEET, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1944 ON FILE WITH THE VIRGINIA CORPORATION_COMMISSION. page 7 t Map-See Manuscript · VIRGINIA ·TRAILWAYS page & } ·Virginia Stage Lines Charlottesville, Virginia August 18, 1945 Mr~ Burton Marye, Jr. Traffic & .Planning Engineer Department of Highways· · Richmond, Virginia Dear :Sir:. . . . We: a,re :enclosing her.ein three copies of Form P. A.-8 which we :would: appreciate your approving and returning a copy of same to:us ... · . These: copies cov.er. an application which we are filing today with the Virginia Corporation Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity over the following route: . From: Farmville,. Virginia to Clarksville,. Virginia over US lijghwa;y 15, serving all intermediate points and returning over same route...... Your early attention to this matter will be appreciated. . . Very truly yours,· C. V. Boyd Traffic Manager CVB--web- CC: V;frginia Corporati~n Commission 1 Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 17 page 9 } City of Richmond 8th. day of September, 1945 Case No. 8229 In the matter of the application of Virginia Stage Lines, In corporated, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The application of Virginia Stage Lines, Incorporated, fo:r a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate motor vehicles for the transportation of passengers, baggage, mail, ex press and newspapers over the following described route: From Farmvill~ to Clarksville, Virginia, over U. S. Highway 15, serving all intermediate points, and return over the same route. No ·passengers transported whose origin is Keysville and destination Barnes Junction and/or intermediate-points between such points or the reverse. Passengers will be transported whose origin is Keysville or Barnes Junction or intermediate points when- destined to points beyond Keysville or Barnes Junction in either direction or the reverse. IT IS ORDERED that this matter be set for hearing in the court room of the State Corporation Commission, Richmond, Virginia, on October 3, 1945, at 10 o'clock A. M.; · IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the applicant give notice of said application and the time and place of hearing thereof by proper service, using Form MC-4, on an officer or owner of every common carrier of passengers and express, including railroads and every certificated motor vehicle carrier operating in the terri tory proposed to be served by the applicant, on the State High way Commission; on the mayor or principal officer of any city or town, and on the chairman of the board of supervisors of any county into or through which the applicant may desire to operate at least twenty days before the hearing. page 10 ~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BEFORE THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION In the matter of the application of Virginia Stage Lines, In corporated, for a certificate of public convenience and neces sity-Case No. 8229. To the Honorable State Corporation Commission of Virginia: Now comes Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, a Virginia cor poration, and objects to the granting of the certificate of public convenience and necessity applied for by Virginia Stage Lines, Incorporated, which application is designated as Case No. 8229, and for the grounds of its objection states as follows: 18 Supreme Court of Appeals of "Virginia 1. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation is a corporation brganized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth,of Virginia and having its principal office in the City of Richmond, Virginia, and it is a common carrier of passengers by motor vehicles within the meaning of Chapter 129 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia for the year 1936, as amended, and it is also a "common carrier by motor vehicle" as defined by the Federal "Motor Car rier Act, 1935", and it is engaged in the transportation of passen gers and their baggage, for compensation, as a common carrier, under authority of certain certificates of public convenience and necessity heretofore issued to it by the State Corporation Com mission of Virginia, among which are Certificates Nos. P-1089, P-1109 and P-1111, all three of which certificates were issued to said Atlantic Greyhound Corporation on December 31, 1936, and are of record in· the office of the State Corporation Commission, and each 'one of which, together with the tariff's, time schedules and descriptions of routes relating thereto, is asked to be taken and considered·as a part of the record in this case; and, 2. Under authority of the said Certificate No. P-1089· Atlantic Greyhound Corpora~ion is authorized to transport passengers and their baggage by motor vehicles between Richmond, Virginia, and the Virginia-North Carolina State boundary line over U. S. Highway No. 360 by way of Amelia, BurkevilJe, Keysville, Barnes Junction,. Halifax and Danville, Virginia, and also by way of South Boston over U. S. Highway No. 58; and, page 11 ~ 3. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation further repre- sents that it has been operating continuously under authority of the said certificate of public convenience and neces sity ever since it was issued and is still so operating, the volume of its service, as shown by the time schedules filed with and approved by the State Corporation Commission, ainounting to seven trips southbound and eight trips northbound, daily; and, t 4. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation further represents that Virginia Stage Lines, Incorporated, has filed its application with the State Corporation Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity under Chapter_ 129, Acts of Assembly, 1936, authorizing it to render service as a common carrier of passengers between Farmville and Clarksville, Virginia, over U.S. Highway No. 15; and it appears from the said appplication that the said Applicant proposes to engage in the transportation of passengers and their baggage by motor vehicles, as a common carrier, for compensation, between Keysville and Barnes Junc tion, Virginia, and that, in so doing, the Applicant prop0ses to operate over the route of the said Atlantic Greyhound Corpora tion, the holder of the said Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. P-1089. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 19 5. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation objects to the granting of the certificate applied for on the ground that the Applicant pro poses to operate over the same route between Keysville and .Barnes Junction, a distance of eighteen (18) miles, now held by it .and hereinbefore described; and it here avers that the public con~ venience and necessity. with respect to such route. is now being .adequately served by it, the present certificate holder; and, 6. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation objects to the granting of the certificate applied for on the further grou,nd that the public convenience and necessity does not require the service proposed to be rendered by the Applicant between Farmville and Clarks ville, Virginia; and, 7. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation is advised, believes and here alleges that the granting of the certificate applied for in this -case would not be in the public interest, would constitute an act of grave injustice to it and would be in direct contra page 12 ~ vention of subsection (c) of Section 6 of Chapter 129 of the Acts of the General Assembly, 1936, which reads in part as follows: "No certificate shall be granted to an applicant proposing to operate over the route of any holder of a certificate when the public convenience and necessity with respect to such route is being adequately served by such certificate holder; and no cer tificate shall be granted to an applicant proposing to operate over the route of any holder of a certificate unless and until it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the commission that the service rendered by. such certificate holder, over the said route, is inadequate to the public needs; and if the commission shall be of opinion that the service rendered by such certifi cate holder over the said rout~ is in any respect inadequate to the public needs, such certificate holder .shall be given reason .able time and opportunity to remedy such inadequacy before any certificate shall be granted to an applicant proposing to operate·over such route." 8. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation further avers that the granting of the certificate applied for would be not only contrary to the statute law of Virginia, but would be against the declared policy of the Commonwealth as found in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia with respect to duplication of motor transportation service. See N. S. Ry. Co. v. Comm. 1 141 Va. 179, Petersburg, Hope well & City Point Ry. Co. v. Comm., 152 Va. 193, Southside Transportation Co. v. Comm., 157 Va. 699, Jessup & Shepherd v. Comm., 174 Va. 133. This objector further avers that if the certificate applied,for ijp.ould be granted, such an act would create a situation in which two intrastate passenger 20 Supreme- Court of Appeals of Virgmia motor vehicle carriers would be operating their buses over the same route, between Keysville and Barnes Junction, and serving the same points and would result in an unnecessary duplication of service and destructive competition, without any correspond ing benefit to the public. 9. Atlantic. Greyhound Corporation further avers that the service now being rendered by· it betwe'en Keysville ~nd Barnes Junction is adequate to the public needs,. and it further avers that. if the service now being rendered by it is in any respect inade quate to the public needs, it is able and willing to remedy such inadequacy, after the same has been proven to exfst, within a. reasonable time. · page 13 ~ In conclusion" Atlantic Greyhound Corporation is advised, believes and here avers that. the application filed should be denied and dismissed for the following reasons: (a) The proposed operation cannot be justified on grounds of public convenience and necessity. · (b) The public convenience and necessity over the route which the Applicant proposes to operate between Keysville and Ba.rnEs Junction is being ad~quately served by the present certificate holder, Atlantic GreyJ:iound Corporation. Respectfully submitted,. ATLANTIC GREYHOUND CORPORATION By H. PEIRCE BRAWNER, Vice-President. -City of Richmond, to-wit; I, Margaret P. Shuman, a Notary Public in and for the City -aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, and whose commission expires on March 111 1949, do hereby certify that H. Peirce Brawner,. whose name IS signed to the foregoing writing, has this day ap peared before me in my City aforesaid and, having been duly sworn, made oath and says that the allegations contained in the ·said writing, insofar as made of his own knowledge, are true and -correct, and insofar as made upon the information of others, he -believes them to be true. Given under my hand this 3rd day of October, 1945. MARGARET P. SHUMAN Notary Public .OSCAR L. SHEWMAKE Counsel for Atlantic Greyhound Corporation. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., y. Commonwealth. 21 page 14 } COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION Commonwealth of Virginia At the relation of Virginia Stage Lines, Incorporated Case No. 8229 In re: Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity . between Farmville, Va., and Clarksville, Va., via U. S. Route _ No. 15 In the matter of the applicatiob of Virginia Stage Lines,. Inc. for a certificate of public convenience and necessity between Farmville, Va. and Clarksville, Va. via U.S. Route No. 15. STIPULATION. It is hereby stipulated and agre.ed between counsel for Virginia Stage Lines, Inc. on the one hf:tnd and counsel for Atlantic Grey hound Corporation on the other hand that this stipulation, and the documents referred to therein, shall constitute the record for use in the appeal of Virginia Stage Lines, Inc. to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia from the order entered by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia in this case on the 12th day of June, 1946 :- (1) Virginia Stage Lines, Inc. is a Virginia corporation with its principal office at Charlottesville, Va.; is the holder and operator of numerous certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia author izing common carrier passenger service by motor on the public highways of Virginia, via various routes as specified in said cer- tificates; and page 15 } especially· via Route 29 from the Virginia-District of Columbia Line to Charlottesville, thence via Route 613 from Charlottesville to Scottsville, thence via Route 20 from · Scottsville to Dillwyn, thence via Route 15 from Dillwyn to · Farmville, and also via Route 49 from Clarksville to Virgilina at the Virginia-North Carolina Line. It is an experienced and cap able common carrier passenger motor bus operator, with ample resources. 22 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginls (2) Atlantic Greyhound Corporation is a Virginia Corporation with its principal office at Richmond, Va.t.is the holder and opera tor of numerous certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by the State Corporation Commi~sion of Virginia author izing common carrier passenger service by motor on the public highways of Virginia, via various routes as specified in said cer tificates; and especially via Route 360 from Richmond to Amelia, Bqrkville1 Keysville, Barnes Junction, South Boston and Dan ville. It 1s an experienced and capable common carrier passenger motor bus operator with ample resources. (3) The various routes on which Atlantic Greyhound Corpora tion js the certificate holder are shown on the Exhibit No. 2 by purple lines. The various routes on which Virginia Stage Lines, Inc. is the certificate holder are shown on said exhibit by blue, brown and gre-en lines_. The ro11;te (b~tween Farmville and Clarks ville) covered.by the Virginia Stage Lines, Inc,. application in this case is shown on said exhibit by red lines. (4) On August 23, 1945, Virginia Stage Lines1_Inc. duly filed with the State Corporation Commission of Virginia its application under the Virginia Motor Carrier Act of 1936, as amended, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a common car rier for the handliitg of newspapers, express, mail, and baggage, along wj.th passengers by motor vehicle from Farmville, Va. to Clarksville, Va. via Route 15, serving all intermediate points and return over .the same route, subject to a "closed door" restriction which would prohibit transportation of passengers between Keys ville and Barnes Junction or intermediate points and the reverse. Said application was properly executed 9:nd on the page 16 ~ official form prescribed by the State Corporation Com- mission; all of the exhibits- required by the rules and regulations of the Commission were filed with said application. The prescribed filing fee was paid thereon. The approval of the State Highway Commission of Virginia as to the route and the equipment proposed to be used in said operation was duly filed with the Commission. Said application with exhibits was duly docketed by order of the Commission entered August 23rd, 1945. All notices to all interested parties required by law or by the rules and regulations of the Commission were duly and properly served. Lawful hearing on said application was duly held on the 3rd day of October, 1945, before the Commission. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation appeared at that hearing as an objector and duly filed its answer and objections to said application. After con- sideration of the evidence and briefs of argument, the Commission (Commissioner Hooker not participating in the hearing or the decision) entered an order on the 12th day of June, 1946, denying said application. Virginia S.tage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 23 (5) On the 15th day of June, 1946., Virginia Stage Lines, Inc.· duly served notice on Atlantic Greyhound Corporation ·and on -the Attorney General of Virginia "that an appeal would be taken from said order; den,ying said application, and that .a transcript ·of the record would ·be applied for on the 10th d~y of July, 1946. ·On the 26th d~ of June,, 1946, ·said notice of appeal and of appli ·cation for transcript of the record ·and protest.against teniporai::y ~uthorization for operations by Gr~yhound over ·said route was :formally presented to, and filed with, the Commission. (6) Public convenience n,nd necessity for the motor bus ·com mon carrier operation covered by said application has been duly ·established. (7) In addition to the foregoing, the record .shall include the ·following:- ( 1) From the stenographic transcri.pt .of the hearin,g : (a) Pages 3-21 inclusive. (b) Pages 25-58 inclusive. ( c) Pages 59-67 (middle) inclusive. ( d) Pages 158-174 inclusive. (e) Pages !75-lSO (middle) inclusive. page 17 } (2) The opinion of the Comniisslon supporting its order dcmying said application. Witness our hands and, seals this 13th day of July, 1946. ATLANTIC GREYHOUND CORPORATION .By: Oscar L ..Shew.ma~e l ts Counsel VIRGINIA STAGE LINES., INC• .By: · .John J. Wicker:, Jr.. Its Counsel page 18 ~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA At the relation of Case-No.. 822'9 VIRGINIA STAGE LINES_,· INCORPORATED Z4 Supreme C'ourt of Appeals af'·Virginia In re:· Application ·for certificate of public convenience and -necessity. PRESENT: COMMIS8IONERS Harvey B. Apperson (Chairman) L~ McCarthy Downs. APPEARANCES: . _Hbn. John J. Wicker1 Jr.,. Counsel for Applicant Judge 0. L. Shewmakel Counsel for Atlantic Greyhound Corporation (Objector) · Mr. W. C. Seibert1. For the· Com.mission .. Date Heard October 3,, 1945 .. pa;ge 19 ~· CHAIRMAN APPERSON Proceed Senator Wicker. SENATOR- WICKER May it please the Commissfon, I think it would be helpful if the Commission had before it this map. I have one to file and Judge Shewmake has one. It is the Virginia State Highway map, showing the route in question marked out and the routes now· being operated by other lines marked out. · If Your Honors please, this is an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity filed by the Virginia Stage . Lines, Incorporated,. asking for a certificate to operate a passenger bus line both ways between Farmville, Virginia and Clarksville~ Virginia,. and you will find it marked, I believe, on your map in. red. The red line down towards the bottom of the map. That · red line begins at Farmville and ends at Clarksville, if your map 'is marked correctly. Between Farmville and Clarksville, Vir ginia on the direct route via U. S. Highway l5r which takes in the chief points of Kingsville, just South of Farmville on rou.te 15,. and Keysville and Wyliesburgr Barnes .Junction, Red Oak and Clarksville. The map, which is filed by consent of page 20·} counsel as an exhibit has on the right hand corner the legend showing all the colors named and the color red is the Virginia. ~tage Lines proposed line1 the one being hea.rd today. Next are the green lines and the green lines show the routes Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v_. Commonwealth. 25 · over which the Virginia Stage ·Lines, the applicant here today, now holds certificates of convenience and necessity. You· will notice those green lines connect various points. There is a line from Richmond to Staunton via Charlottesville, a line from Alexandria near Washington on down southwestward through Culpeper down to Charlottesville and coming on down through Lynchburg and hitting the North Carolina line about Virgilina, continuing to Clarksville. Then there is shown in brown the lines that are at present leased. Those lines run from Scottsville on down to Farmville North to South and they run westwardly to Route 29 and eastwardly to Fork Union. On those lines the applicant here today is the certificate holder but they are under lease to Albert Kelnt, trading as Scottsville Bus Line. As the Commission knows, there is on file pending for hearing, which is· set on the ~5th of t:his month, a cancellation of that lease. The certificate rights on the route, shown in blue from Charlottesville to Scottsville are now held by Cleveland Brothers. That page 21 r certificate has been sold by Clevel3i11d Brothers to Vir- _ ginia Stage Lines, the applicant here today, and appli cation for transfer will be heard on the 25th of this month. From Scottsville to Farmville we have and there will be introduced a contract signed by Mr. Kent, just recently made, in which he agrees to can~el and surrender the existing lease thirty days after notice, so that the Virginia Stage Lines would then have that operation back in its hands. . Now the purple lines on the map show some of the certificated lines opckated by the Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, and then there is a yellow line showing the route from Richmond ~p to Fork Union on down to Dillwyn and Buckingham, which is operated by the James River Bus Line and owned by the Grey hound and leased to James Rive)' Bus Line. Many of these lines on this map have no direct application to the applic.ation being heard today, but it was thought that it would be helpful to give a full picture to the Commission. So far as we know, the only objector is the Atlantic Greyhound Cor- poration. • page 22 r It will be noted that the only place on this route ap- plied for where the Greyhound Line comes together with the line applied for by the Virginia Stage Lines is a distance of approximately eighteen miles between Keysville and Barnes Junction, and you will see the purple and red running along there parallel to each other- between Keysville and Barnes Junction. The application states as to that point: "No passengers to be , transported whose origin is Keysville and destination Barnes Junction and/or intermediate points between such points or the reverse". In other words, in deference to the Greyhound Cor- Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia poration, we are applying for and requesting the granting of the certificate with a limitation which would prevent us from picking up anybody at one end of the Greyhound Line whei:e they parallel, that is Barnes Junction, and taking them to Keysville, or any place between Barnes Junction and Keysville, or coming South, take them in Keysville and carrying them. to Barnes Junction, or picking them up anywhere between Keysville and Barnes Junction and carrying them to Barnes Junction, in other words, picking them l.\P anywhere between and carrying them to Keys- ville on the North or Barnes Junction on the South. We page 23 } would pick them up anywhere between if going beyond the Greyhound Line, beyond Keysville on the North and Barnes Junction on the South, or pick them up South of Barnes Junction to carry them to an intermediate point, or North of Keysville to carry them to an intermediate point. We make that in deference to the Greyhound. We have here a number ·Of witnesses, public witnesses, in no way connected with this Company, from Prince Edward County, Charlotte County and various points and from Clarksville and Mecklenburg County, and we believe the Commission will have ample evidence before it of public demand and public need for this service, which will fill the need which now, we contend, is not being filled in any way. There is no criticism of the Greyhound but their route, as will be. seen by the map, does not take that direct line up route 15 between Clarksville and Farmville as our route will, and we believe we can show that this is in no way con trary to the rights of the Greyhound Corporation, just a parallel for a short distance, and ours is a direct line, whereas the Grey.:.. · hound line goes around various other points. page 24 } I won't undertake to go into the details here, the witnesses will testify to that, except to say that Farm ville is the seat of two large institutes of learning and many of the students at those institutions reside in the territory that will be served by this line. They have no direct service and in some instances no service ·at all and Farmville is the center of medical service, for there is not a single doctor at Keysville. When they need a doctor, they must go to Farmville. A glance at the map will show that the only way to get there is to go in their own con veyance or hire someone to take them, and the only way now they can do is to go to Burkeville on the East, which is as far as Farmville, and then back back to Farmville. We have exhibits to show that, if this certificate is granted, it will open to this. territory now without adequate service. This is in no way a criticism of the Atlantic Greyhound,-they are rendering as good service as they can render on the routes that they have and with the rights that they have, but ours is over a different route. We believe this will open up to the business and to the personal life of the people in the territory, not only a place Virginia Stag·e Lines, Inc., v.· Commonwealth. 27 to do their banking business and a place for their page 25 } hospital service, but also a way to get to Charlottesville where many of them go to the hospital there, and to the University, and likewise with connections of the Virginia Stage Lines, will open up Washington and points as far North as .Boston, and points South as far as Miami, Florida. Accordingly, we believe when the evidence is presented here, the Commission will see that public convenience and necessity justifies the granting of this application and that it is not in con flict with the rights of the Atlantic Greyhound Lines who operate, -except for that eighteen miles, on an entirely .different route. CHAIRMAN APPERSON Judge Shewmake, do you care to make an opening statement? JUDGE SHEWMAKE If the Commission please, I have this morning filed with the Commission, and you will find it in the file on this case, an An swer, if it :rµay be so termed, on behalf of the Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, in which the Atlantic Greyhound Cor _page 26 l poration states its objection to the granting of the.cer-· tificate applied for and sets forth the grounds· of its objection, both matters of fact and matters of law. A copy of that Answer was handed Mr. Wicker this morning. The map which has been introduced, and ·which we are very glad is before the Commission, does not, of course, attempt to put before the Commission the whole transportation picture. All of the lines or routes covered by the Atlantic Greyhound Cor poration are not shown on this map. For instance, the Atlantic Greyhound Corporation serves the routes from Alexandria to Winchester and down U. S. 11 all the way to Bristol, and there are numerous others which we do not think necessary to put in this map. The map, however, is sufficient to show what the transportation facilities by passenger motor bus are in the. af fected area. Our contention is, in the first place, that public con venience and necessity does not require the service proposed to be rendered. \ In every application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity the burden of proving that demand rests upon page 27 ~ the applicant. As the Supreme Court of Appeals said in the most recent pronouncement on this question in the case of Jessup and Shepherd v. the Commonwealth, 1r4 Vir- . ginia, 133, in which I had t.he honor to be counsel, the Court says that it is not required of the State Corporation Commission to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity, even though the application is not oposed by any other carrier. The burden rests upon the carrier to show that in e'Very case, for the reason that, if companies are allowed to over extend themselves 28 . Supreme Court of .Appeals of Virginia and to attempt to coyer more territory than they could adequatefy serve, then the tendency is to break down that company.; ·1 could cite innumerable instances of companies. that have risen and fallen by just that process.. Again we object beC"ause part of this route proposed to be covered lies directly over a. route covered by the Atlantic- Grey hound Corporation, and th.ere we rely upon the language of the statute-. In 1923 when the first Motor Vehicle Carrier AC't was passed by the· General Assembly of Virginia the word "route" was very seldom used:· The word "tenitory" was the word used where we now find "route" in the statute relating to cases of this. page 28 ~ kindr and if a motor carrier attempted to go into that territory operated by another carrier to break down that operation, that was invasion of that territory. It s.till is by motor bus law. • This application which reads as one asking for authority to operate between Farmville and Clarksville,. is. designed for the purpose of setting up a much longer route. If the applicant was: not in the bus business ;-if the app.Ucant held no other certifi cate1 I could think of nothing t~hat would induce the management of the Virginia Stage Lines to file an application to opera.te buses between Farmville and Clarksville and stand or fall on the reve nue from that operation,. for the reason that there is nothing there and the evidence will show that1 not by evidence of our witnesses: but by the evidence of their own witnesses when it comes on. Of course everybody wants a bus operating by their front door. Everybody wants to ride once a week or once a month or once a year, but that is not public transportation business, and the Courts h·ave held long ago, and this Commission has repeatedly held that it must be shown that the revenue to be received page 29 ~ from the operation will be more than sufficient to defray the expense of the operation,. and where that situation cannot be shown, then the conclusion is. that public convenience a~d necessity does not require the service proposed to be ren dered. The measure of usefulness of any conunon carrier of pas sengers is the volume of patronage it enjoys. The measure of the need for the service is the volume of patronage it enjoys. I can't imagine,that there is such a sudden and overwhelming desire on the part of the people at Farmville to go to Clarksville, or on the part of the people in Clarksville to go to Farmville, or a desire on .the part of the people, the few of them that live between the two places, to travel from one to the other of to those towns. They are nice towns, but small. I can't imagine that there are sufficient "number of people who will patronize this service daily to warrant :the operation of a bus line between those two towns. Now at the present time, the Commission will see by looking .at the map, that if the occasional traveler from Farmville should Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth.· 29 decide he must get to Clarksville, and it is bound to be occa sional, he can take the Atlantic Greyhound Corpora page 30 ~ t.ion's bus at Fa.rmville·and ride to Blackstone and ride on down from there to Clarksville. If he wants to go to Keysville he can ride our bus from Farmville to Burkeville and go on to Keysville. If he wants to go to Barnes Junction, why he should want to go we will await that proof with interest-but he can go to Burkeville and then go on to Barnes J.µnction. Our position is then these two things: First, public con venience and necessity must be shown for this proposed operation and our contention is that public convenience and necessity does ·not require it. Secondly, that a large part of the proposed opera tion is over a route now served by eight trips one way and seven trips the other way every day by the Atlantic Greyhound Cor- . · poration and that t~at service is adequate. . Senator Wicker says a passenger in Farmville may want to go to Washington, and when this whole scheme is completed, and it looks good from the transportation standpoint-it took a lot of thought to work that out-he can go from Farmville to Scotts ville and Scottsville to Washington. So he can but at this mo- ment, if a citizen at Farmville wants to go to Wash page 31 } ingtoh, there is an Atlantic Grey.hound bus that comes into Richmond from Farmville and then from Rich mond to Washington that passenger qan go by a shorter route, and we have been carrying passengers that way for a number of years~ As a matter of fact, if a citizen of Farmville wants to go · anywhere, he can go North, South, East or West over our routes right there in that town. The yellow line shown on the map is operated at the present time by the James River Bus Line, as Senator Wicker stated. That certificate is owned bythe Atlantic Greyhound Corporation and it is operated more or less under the supervision of the Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, but is under lease to Mr. Shepherd. We stand in relation to that yellow line as Virginia Stage Lines does to the brown line, so I think you can count the yellow line as part of the Atlantic Greyhound's service, certainly if the brown line is to be considered as a part of the Virginia Stage Lines service. · · Now with regard to the restricted service, Senator Wicker says that, in deference to the Atlantic Greyhound Lines, the Virginia Stage Lines very graciously and courteously forbears page 32 } to pick up any passengers at Keysville and carry them to Barnes Junction, or pick up any passengers. between Keys:ville and Barnes Junction, or pick up any passengers at Barnes Junction for Keysville. That is very kind, but we were not worried about that·because the law giv~ us that anyhow, but what the Virginia Stage Lines does intend to do is to pick up a passenger at Keysville bound for Clarksville and carry him all the 30 Supreme Court of .Appeals of Virginia way; to pick up a passenger at Barnes Junction bound for Farm ville and points North and carryhim all the way. Atlantic Grey hound Corporation has a franchise, Certificate -P-1089, giving it the exclusive right to transport passengers on highway 360, and · that is the one that goes between Keysville and Barnes Junction. It would be small comfort to us to have the restrictions suggested by Senator Wicker and that be the only one put on this operation if the certificate applied for should be granted. Barnes Junction is nothing more than a wide place in the road. A few people live there and they are excellent people and very deserving, but they are few in number. I don't imagine there are many people in Keysville that would go to Barnes Junction. There· page 33 ~ may be some at Barnes Junction that want to go to Keysville, but there may be many people at Keysville whose destinations are points South and many people at Barnes Junction whose destinations are North of Keysville. As we have the exclusive rights between Keysville and Barnes Junction to carry passengers on that route we also have the right to carry passengers originating at either of those points as far as we can at the moment. If a person at Ke'ysville wants to go to Clarksville we can carry him as far as Barnes Junction and can continue to do that as long as we hold that franchise and if he wants to go from Barnes Junction to Farmville, or points North, we can carry him as far as Keysville. In other words, we feel that our certifi cate gives us the right to transport passengers between Barnes Junction and Keysville, no matter how much further than either of those points they may wish to go. So that, if the Commission should find that public convenience and necessity require the operation proposed to be rendered, and if the Commission should disagree as to the statutes referred to set out in our Answer, which we hope will not be the case, we suggest that this restriction be placed 011 the face of the cer- tificate: .. page 34 ~ "No passenger shall be taken 011 at Keysville or at any point between Keysville and Barnes tTunction and carried southward, and no passenger shall be taken on at Barnes. Junction or at any point between Barnes Junction and Keysville and carried northward." The Virginia Stage Lines is an excellent bus company. Its management is good, its management is as intelligent as that of any bus company I know of that operates in Virginia, and if its management is as intelligent as I think it is, it will realize that the restriction I have just suggested is for the protection of every certificated carrier operating in this State, and th.ere may come a time within the next two weeks or next ·two months when an application is made to operate partly ov'='r the Virginia Stage Lines and they will wish they had a restriction like this. It is the Virginia Stag·e Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. -~1 proper one to be put on ·any carrier that proposes to operate over ~mother carrier's line where the distance is in any degree sub stantial. For these reasons we object to the granting of the certificate at :all, and if it-should be granted, we respectfully ask the Commission to restrict the operation in the manner just suggested. ·page 35 ~ Chairman Apperson All right. Call your first witness. Senator Wicker: I did JiOt object to anything Judge Shewmake said, a great ~ieal -of which was helpful to get the different viewpoints before the Commission. In view of that, I hope I may be pardoned for a few moments. Glancing at the map, take the purple line leading southwardly from Richmond, leading down to Keysville) it comes along route 360 via Amelia, Burkeville and then to Keysville, ancl then it · Tuns southwardly from Keysville to Wyliesburg to Barnes Jl,lllc tion, and then please note that it turns sharply westward; con- tinuing on route 360 to Clover and Halifax and Danville. . Now I invite the Commission's attention to that for this specific reason:. That the Answer which Judge Shewmake re ferred to ~nd the certificate on which the A.tlantic Greyhound Telies is P-1089. That certificate grants the Atlantic Greyhound the right to transport passengers from Richmond down to Dan ville over route 360. That certificate does not give .the Grey- hound Corpqration any right to transport South of page 36 ~ Barnes Junction on route 15 going st~aigh t down. Nor does that certificate give the Atlantic Greyhound Etny rights whatever North of Keysville over route 15. In other words, the only rights the Greyhound has North. of Keysville by this certificate is North of Burkeville and the only rights South are southwardly to Danville and not southwardly to Clarksville. Consequently, if the language suggested by Judge Shewmake, as· I recall it, was that the restriction should prevent taking on any one at Keysville for any point North, taking on a passenger at Barnes Junction on any point in between Barnes Junct on and Keysville, to carry him to any point North, to be correct, accord ing to theii; theory, instead of Northwardly, it would have to be that we could not take on any passenger between Barnes Junction and Keysville, or any point between them and take him north wardly on any route held by the Greyhound, which is. route 360, which is :&urkeville, nor take them on at Keysville or Barnes Junc tion and carry them to any point southward on route 360, which is the route the Greyhound holds a certificate on and bases this Answer upon. 32 Supreme Ceu:rt of Appears ·of' Virginia page 37 ~ MR. S. A. JESSUP, a witness introduced on behalf of applicant, being first duly sworn,. testified as follows: DIRECT' EXA1v1INATION- By Senator Wicker: Q. Will you state· your name a:nd business- connection please,. Sir? A. My name ie S. A. Jessup, Charlottesville,. Virginia, President of the Virginia Stage Lines,, the.applicant in this case) and Presi dent of the Safeway Trails operating between New York and Washington. · Q. What was the name of that.? A. Saf~way Trails. Q. That is the one between New York and Washington'! A. That is our- connecting bus line between New York and Washington. Q. You have filed here and there is before the Commission this application for passenger bus operation with baggage, ex press and mail between Farmville,. Virginit1·and Clarksville, Vir:.. ginia via route 15. Is that corroot,. Sil"'? page 38 ~ A. That is right. Q .. Mr. Jessup, you have filed as Exhibit B, with your application some schedules of the proposed operations.. Briefly those schedules appear to indicate three trips daily in each direc tion between Charlottesville and Clarksville? A. They do. Q. Leaving Charlottesville,. calling at Scottsville,. then I•'arm• ville, then Kingsville,. then Keysville,. then Wyliesburg,. Barnei;. Junction and then Red Oak and then Clarksville? · A. Yes, Sir. · Q. Those trips you propose to leave Charlottesville goin1~ southwardly at 6 A. M., 12:01 midday and 5:30 P. M.,.is thaL correct? · A. Yes. Q. The same trips would leave Farmville at 8:20 A. NL, 2 :21) P. M. and 7 :50 P. M., is that correct? A. You mean Farmville or Clarksville? Q. Leave Farmville 8:20 A. M., 2:20 P. M. and 7:50 P. M.? . A. Yes. · · Q. Comip.g North you propose three similar trip~· leavin ~ Clarksville at six in the morning, 12 :01 midday and page 39 } 5 :30 in the afternoon? A. Yes. Q. Going all the way by the same route to Charlottesville'? A. That is correct. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 33 S. A. Jessur,. Q. What is the difference in mileage by this route, your route, .between Keysville and Farmville as compared with the com bination of the Atlantic Greyhoufld route, which goes to Keys- ville, off to Burkeville, and Burkeville to Farmville? ' A. I would like for that question to be asked Mr. Trice. Q. Mr. Jessup, does the Virginia Stage Lines own the pas senger bus franchise between Scottsville and Farmville over the same route 15? A. Yes, Sir. Q. That has been under lease to Albert-Kent, has it not? A. Yes. Q._Have you made any contract with Mr. Kent as to the can cellation of that lease? A~ I have. Q. I would like for you to identify that as the contract made with the present lessee'? A. Yes, Sir. page 40 ~ Senator Wicker: I would like to off er that as Ex- hibit No. 4. Chairman Apperson: Any objection? Judge Shewmake: No. Chairman Apperson: It will be admitted. Note: Filed Exhibit "Jessup No. 4". Senator Wicker: Q. Without reading the language, the sense of that is that Kent ' agrees thirty days after written request to cancel the lease be tween him and the Virginia Stage Lines from Farmville North to Scottsville? A. That is correct. Q. From Scottsville North to Charlottesville that certificate is now owned by whom'? A. Cleveland Brothers. It is in the name of the two brothers. Q. In the name of Albert Cleveland and Grover Cleveland, trading as Cleveland Brothers? A. Yes. Q. Has the Virginia Stage Lines purchased that certifi cate? page 41 ~ A. They have. Q. And there is filed before the State Corporation Commission joint request of the Virginia Stage Lines and Cleve land Brothers for the transfer of the certificate? A. Yes. 34 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia S. A. Jessup. Q. That is now pending and is set for the 25th of this month is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Jessup, on the map that has been filed, the Virginim State Highway map filed here, does there appear northwardly from Charlottesville a line over route 29 marked with green leading on up to Alexandria towards Washington, and them . appears a line leading eastwardly from Charlottesville over routE~ 250 to Richmond and that is marked green; and there appears n line westwardly from Charlottesville over route 29 to Staunton, and that is marked green, and a line, also marked green, south wardly and southwestwardly to Lynchburg there over 501, and southwardly to Virgilina and the North Carolina line to Clarksi ville; are· all of those lines marked green on this map lines G>per~ ated by the Virginia Stage Lines under certificates of convenience and necessity issued by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia? · page 42 ~ A. Y e.s, Sir, in addition to thos~ marked in green, all of our lines are not marked on there, neither were all the Greyhound Li;nes marked on there, just a small portion of both. We also operate from Charlottesville to Richmond qver a different route from 260 and instead of from Charlottesville to Staunton, we operate on to Clifton Forge West and also from Richmond to Washington over route 2, and we have severa.I routes out of vV ashington into the Valley of Virginia not shown on this map. Q. The lines shown on this map are to give a general idea? A. To give an idea, a general idea, of the close connection o;:1 courses around the portion we are applying for and not by any means were they all marked on the map, not by any means. Q. The lines that were marked were those that might in some way have some possible connection with the application before the Commission today? A. That is right, Sir. Q. Now, Mr. Jessup, in addition to what is shown on this map1 are there any connections, if this application is granted, that would be available to the people in the territory marked red, are there any additional connections this would open up page 43 ~ to them'? A. Well, a passenger getting on a bus along any po1' tion of the red line, of course, would have a. connection both North and South. If a man lived at Wyliesburg or Hampden. Sydney College near the line and he wanted to go to any point North, regardless of where he wanted to go, he could make connection with us on our line or connection with the Greyhound on thefr Virginia .Stage Lines, Inc., v. C0mmonwealth. 35 S. A. Jessup. line where we cross eacb ·other, and do the same South, and if a man wanted to go to :some place out of Virginia to any point on the red line, the granting of this franchise would give the com munities which we expect to serve, if granted this certificate, _passenger service from all over the Country into that point.. A.nyone traveling South from points North of Virginia to our line from the map you will note it is p~actically a straight line into the South and we feel that those people nearby the route that we ·expect to operate over would have a service that they would never have unless we did connect it up with our other lines. Now it is all true. that by our office being in Charlottesville, we would not go to Clarksville and Farmville and make page 44 ~ application just to serve those people alone, and if we did that, they would get very little service, but with the ·connections we have surrounding those communities, it wi.ll give those people access to the entire country by public transportation. ·That is, of course, the reason, that all public highways are con nected up together and don't just butt off somewhere. Q. As a matter of fact, there is no difference in your application in this case and the applications of other common carriers when. they apply for other little routes, they don't mean to serve that -one little segment? If they were allowed to serve just that one little segment ,no line could make any money? A. That is exactly right, and it is not only the c-ase of the Vir ginia Stage Lines, but the case of ma.ny operators even by railroad or bus. You don't necessarily have to make a profit on a section -eighteen miles long in. the middle of your franchise, but if you can get one or two passengers a week, or a month, or a day, and get him on your line and hold him for 1000 .miles, you will make money on the passenger and it helps to give the fellow that is isolated service from other sections. page 45 t Q. Mr. Jessup, what have you to say as to any public demand or public need for this service? What need is there for this service? A. Any community that has hard surfaced roads and has no public service, whether one or 1000, they need the service. There is no question about that. It is just unfortunate maybe that every settlement is not thickly .settled and the reason they are not may be because they do not have public transportation. Q. Are you familiar personally ,with the territory speaifi.cally · .in,volved in this application'? A. I have been over it, I reckon, fifty times. . Q. How long have you been in the motor transportation busi- 11ess, .Mr. Jessup'? A. Oh, twenty odd years I would say, eighteen or twenty years. '_;I 36· Supreme Court of Appeals- of Virginia. S. A. Je~p • . Q. The financial statement of the Virginia Stage Lines, Incor porated, is that on file with the State Corporation Commission ·t A. Yes, Sir,. it is. 1 Q• You-rely on. that to indicate the financial fitness and sta bility of the Virginia Stage Lines,. Inc.? A. Yes,. Sir,. I do. page 46 ~ Q. From your experience of some twenty years or more, successful experience in the motor passenger transportation business, and from your observation and knowl edge of this territory,- what is your opinion, state your opinion to the Commission as to vrhether this line would be economically and financially sustained'? A. I believe that the people living off the line want to visit and use it for this purpose,. and the people living within the community for which we are applying will find business away from the terri tory, taking it as a whole,, for that territory is surrowided by Hampden Sydney College and the University of Virginia and the hospital at t}:le University of Virginia., Fork Union, and the hos~ pital at Farmville. ~The sick people do have to go to those places and they will need and want to he visited by their people, and that that route will be sustaining, taking it as a whole, but I don't believe a fellow could afford to run a $15,000 bus between those places if he did not connect with somebody and go further North,. South2. East and West. Q. The Virginia Stage Lines does· have right now connections. North, South, East and West,. both intrastate and inter page 47 ~ state, that would fit in directly with this route app1ied for, is that correct? A. Yes, Sir, we have franchises down in Southwest Virginia beyond Roanoke and into Mount Airy, N. C., and all over that. country over there, and the way people are scattered now, they have business most everywhere, and all of those riding buses will not be congesting the road with cars when we get them back. Q. In other words, this is the connecting link between the franchises you already have'? A. That is right. . Q. And each will operate to help the other? A. They can connect with Danville or Martinsville and Mount. Airy, N. C. Some of them can even get on the Greyhound Lines and ride that carrier down. Q. Would this, in your opinion, prove of benefit in connections where the public would be able to use the Virginia Stage Lines on a certain section and trans£er to the Greyhound or vice versa and thereby get better service? . A. Yes, it would certainly. There is no question about it. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 37 S. A. Jessup. Q. 'What are your passenger rates based on? A. You may ask Mr. Trice that question. page 48 } Senator· Wicker: You may cross-examine, Judge Shewmake. Mr. Jessup: I would like to make one statement, if I may. I remember something was said about the restrictions. We have studied the restriction problem very carefully and I cannot see how those restrictions could be any different from what they are to be fair with the Greyhound Line and give the people living in that community the service they are entitled to. Chairman Apperson: Which restriction are you speaking of the one you proposed or the one that Judge Shewmake proposes, in the event the Commission should be of opinion to grant the certificate? A. Yes, Sir, t.hat one. Q. The one Judge Shewmake proposes? A. Yes. Senator Wicker: :Mr. J~sup, I wonder if you have that clear in your mind'? Are you speaking of favoring the restriction Judge Shewmake proposes? A. No. If a man want~d to get on the bus at Wylies page 49 } burg, and go to Charlottesville or Farmville, as I under- stood Judge Shewmake's restriction, he would object to· that, and he would not be allowed to do it. Now, if the GrelY hound Lines, while they run over that road and they have the intrastate rights to run over it, if we could not pick up that pas senger, then when the Greyhound did come along and pick him up, he would have to go to Keysville and catch a connecting bus, and we might be ahead or behind the Greyhound s·chedule, for each carrie;r makes its own schedule to make its own connections, then the passenger that got on somewhere South of Keysville would have to lay over in ;Keysville and then not be given the service he would get if we could pick him up between those points and take him where he was going or take him to Farmville or any place North. As I understood Judge Shewmake's proposed re striction, we would not be permitted to pick up or put off any passengers between the points where the Greyhound operates. Under such a restriction, it would be impossible for our schedule and the Greyhound schedules to hit at both· ends, and if they should not, we won't be able to give that passenger proper service because he would have to change and lay over. 38 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia S. A. Jessup. In other words, as I understand it, if a man was going page 50 } from W yliesburg to some place between Keysville and Farmville, we could not pick him up, but the Grey hound would come along and bring him to Keysville and then he would have to wait. for our next schedule. Senator Wicker: Q. Then they would have to put him off and he would have to wait for your bus? A. Yes, even if he was going to some point before he got to Farmville of Hampden Sydney College. It would not be giving the people in that community the servicP. they should have. Q. You are referring now to the fact that, if the restriction suggested by Judge Shewmake should·be granted, that would be adverse to the people in the community'? A. Yes. · Q. Rates are based on mileage? A. Yes. Q. If the man you mentioned getting on at Barnes Junction, or any place between Barnes Junction and Keysville, wanted to go to Farmville, ifhe did not get off the Greyhound at Keysville a~d then tried to make connection with the Virginia Stage Lines, suppose he stayed on the Greyhound, he would have to go to Burkeville and then transfer at Burkeville and go to page 51 } Farmville?· · A. If he was going to Farmville, but if he wanted to get off before he got to Farmville at any of those places between Keysville and Farmville, he would not be able to go. Q. But going to Farmville, he would have to travel consider ably further and the expense would be necessarily greater in time and money? A. That is right. Another thing that e~1ters into that is,-we have a minimum and I am sure the Greyhound has a minimum fare. We have a minimum of twenty five cents if you don't go but a mile. If he was going five miles from Keysville and got on the Greyhound, they would have to charge him twenty five cents and then we would have to charge him our regular rates to where he was going. It would cost him.more, even with a uniform rate. CROSS EXAMINATION. By Judge Shewmake: . Q. Mr. Jessup, your Company renders most of the bus service Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 39 S. A. Jessup. in what we might call'the North eentral part of the :pag~ 52 ~ State, does it not? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And if this application is granted, it will connect that whole ·operation .of yours North of Charlottesville with the territory af- fected by this application, would it not? · A. Yes, it will make connection with all of our lines both North and South and also with the Greyhound Lines North and South · and East and West. Q. You have a franchise from Washington which goes South- . west by Warrenton and another by N okesville, Culpeper, Ruck ersville and into Charlottesville, and if that line is projected as you and your counsel have explained. to the Commission, it would give to the prospective passenger in Clarksville practically a through route to Washington? . A. It would . . Q. Do you have interstate rights over that route I have just described·? · A. You mean the route North of .Farmville? Q. Washington to Farmville? A. Yes. page 53 ~ Q. And also Farmville to Washington? A. Yes. Q. And have applied for interstate rights over this proposed route into North Carolina? A. We have.· Q. You at present have a certificate shown by the map running over State Highway 49 Southeast from Clarks;ville. That route is also projected into North Carolina and down to Roxoboro and cm to Durham, is it not1 A. It is. Q. And you intend to operate that interstate which means you will have interstate ·rights from Washington to Durham ov_er the· route for which you are applying today, and you intend to operate that whether this certificate you are asking for today is granted or not'? · A. You mean we have interstate routes from Washington to Durham, N. C.'? Q. Yes, over 29 and 501? A. Yes, over 29 and 501. Q. And through South Boston·? A. Yes. Q. And you have applied for them over 15? A.Y~. . Supreme Court of Appeals. o.f Virginia K A .. _Jess1.tp .. page 54 r And you intend to operate then over No. 15 whether · this intrastate certifieate is" granted you or not? . A. I had not thought about it from that standpoint but the ehances are we might. d'o it. I had not thought of that point,. but in case we did operate down over No. 15 interstate and we were denied the intrastate rights,. the people living between Keys ville and Clarksville would not en}oy an:y of our service unless: they were going out of the State into. North Carolina· or Wash-· ington,. D. C. We could not pick them up although we had an· interst'ate certificate and put them. off while in Virginia at any point. · Q. But you have applied for and now .have pei;tding before· the Interstate Connnerce Commission. an application for inter .state service from Farmville to the North Carolina points over this highway No. 15 over which this application reads.'? · A. Yes. Q. Did you make that application ~o the Interstate Commerce Commission in good faith'? A. We certainly did. Q. And you stated that public convenience and page 55 ~ necessity required the service to be rendered? A. I believed we had a good C&S.e both interstate and intrastate or we would not have filed the application. Q. Let's take them separately. We are talking about the· interstate application now. You stated that public convenience and necessity required that service and you still think so'? A. I still do. Q. If the Commission should deny you the certificate now ap plied for and refuse to grant you the rights between Farmville . and Clarksville, would you· abandon your interstate &_:)plication? A. I don't believe we would. We might go ahead ~nd operate it. We might get some of those fellows here toclay supporting this application who are going out of the State and it might help. Q! Some of those gentlemen. here today are much closer to· North Carolina than to Farmville? A. Yes, but they live in ·c1arksville and they like to go to their own State. Q. Suppose they would want to go to Durham? A. They might, they have the Duke·University. Q. And they have lots of good football games there'!. page 56 ~ A. Yes, and that would be a way for Virginians to go down and let the North Carolinians entertain for them. Q. And you expect to take them that way? Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 41 S. A. Jessup. A. Yes, we do. Q. So this application is just an incidental factor and your ma.in purpose is your service from North Carolina to Washing ton, D. C.? A. It fits in very nicely. It fits in just like when I began the qp~ration of a bus business over thirteen miles of road from Crozet to Charlottesville and it has been growing so that we now have 2,000 to 2,500 miles of line in North Carolina and Virginia, not co tinting the franchises between New York and Washington. Q. Now, coming back to the case for a minute, how many towns are there between Farmville and Clarksville, what are they? A. Well I- Q. Look at your map, you say you have been over it fifty times or more. A. I have but I don't count the towns. I know the towns but I don't know how many people in them. I know there is Wyliesburg but I don't know how many people are there and Barnes Junction, I don't know how many people are page 57 ~ there, I never stopped to count them. 0 Q. Keysville is the only real town between Clarks ville and Farmville? A. It is the largest settlement but people in those smaller settlements like to travel as much as those in Keysville. Keys ville has a railroad and those o~her places have not. Q. How about· Keysville, how many people there? A. I don't know. Q. Would you know when you get to Kingsville how many people there? A. I don't know. Q: Would you even know when you get to Kingsville if some body had not told you? A. I usually look at the signs in the highway. Q. When you get to Kingsville when you go through, would you know you were going through'? · A. I am not going to criticize those little towns because I ex . pect to serve them. Q. I am not asking you to criticize them. _l'hey can't help being little any more than I can help being little. I asked you if you were going through Kingsville would you know it unless somebody told you? A. I just don't know. I can't recall. page 58 ~ Q. Now you are criticizing them because you have been there and can't even recall. There are three towns, Keysville, Barnes Junction and Wyliesburg and all three 42 Supreme Court of .Appeals of Virginia S. A. Jessup. are served by the Greyhound., isn't that correct? A. Let me look at my map ·before I answer that. Q. Look at the- map. Senator Wicker: Will you qualify that by saying "Served East and West'' or ''North and South'''? Judge Shewmake: You can take care of that. A. What was your question? Judge Shewmake: There are three towns you have men tioned on the proposed route between Farmville and Clarks ville and those three towns are Keysville, w· yliesburg and Barnes Junction. Isn't it true that all three of them are served by the Atlantic Greyhound? The answer is yes or not? A. They are served in the directions they go. Richmond is served by the Chesapeake and Ohio East and West and Atlantic Coast Line North and South. Q. Now if there are no towns between Keysville and Farmville, where is your traffic coming from between those page 59 ~ two places? A. Well there are a lot of good substantial families all through there on both sides of the road . . Q. And, acc.ording to the map, it is only twenty miles from Keysville to Farmville? A. Eighteen or twenty. Q. And when a farmer gets to be a substantial farmer he usually has his own car? A. Yes, but if he is a substantial farmer he has a lot of help that he would rather have ride a bus t,han buying a quart of liquor riding around. Q. Do you intend to carry the liquor? A. I am talking about the man in the private car. Q. I notice Red Oak. Do you know anybody there except Mr. Berkley Adams? A. I don't believe I do. Q. That is Mr. Berkley Adams' home and there is nothing there but that? A. I understand that he still has a bottling works there and: a few people working there and there is a saw mill so there are right many people. Q. You don't expect to draw many people from the saw mill. do y0u? A. If they keep drawing the salaries they get now page 60 ~ there will not be any trouble about that, they will have plenty to spend for their salaries are something. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., y. Commonwealth. 43 S. A. Jessup. 'Q. They had better spend it for a Cadillac? A. I don't think that would be good judgment. ·Q. As a matter of fact, I believe you stated that you would nO't have applied for this proposed certificate between Farmville and Clarksville if the operation undedt had to stand alone and would not be connected with your other operations? A. If I did not have any operation from Charlottesville to Farmville whereby I could serve the territory with the equipment that we e..'Xpect to use between Farmville and Clarksville, I would not ask tor that certificate. I don't think any' other operator would do such a thing, but this application we are making will be a convenience to the one we have and the one we nave will be a convenience to it in keeping up the equipment and buses and many things. F'or instance, we send a man out to our operation in South Boston and Carolina and he would be traveling over the ;ground between Farmville and Clarksville, and would have no business in that territory as at presenti and it is just as easy to go ,over and attend to my business as to run over there and cut off that expense so far as cost per mile. page 61 l Q. So far as standing by itself, the route is fifty four miles· long, over which you will be operating three ..round trip~ which is 324 miles, what do you figure your average operating ~pense there? A. I did not follow-you there.. Q. If you operate three round trips a day between Farmville :and Clarksville, you have covered 324 miles? A. Yes. Q. What is ypur operating expense per mile? A. I could not answer that. Q. Not less than twenty cents? A. Somewhere ·along there. Q. That would be $64.80 a day you woulq. spend on that opera tion if it stood by itself? A. If those figures are correct. Q. And you would not expect and don't expect to colloot $64..80 .in fares beginning at Clarksville ·and ending at Farmville? A. I covered that, Judge, in my direct statement that you did 11ot necessarily have to make a profit on any bare link; you make .it over the entire route, and I would not ask these gentlemen to ' te.stify for me today if I could not furnish service any page 62 ~ further than Farmville and Clarksville, and I don't believe they would be interested in having the.franchise granted like that .. It is the connections that we expect to make North and East. 44 Supreme Couz:t of Appeals ©f Virginia S. A:. Jessup. Q. The revenue derived from the certificate woul_d not pay the operating· expense? · A. We expect. to leave Clarksville and we· expect to pick t1p, passengers and transfer them to the Greyhound ait Barnes J unc tion over route 47 going to South Boston or Norfolk and expect to pick up passengers between Farmville and Keysville and giye them to the Greyhound at Keysville to go to the points. we do, not serve. Q. Looking at the case before· the Commission at the moment,. and I have the ·original application in my hand,. you. state here under the provision of the application in which it is required that the applicant state his reasons for asking that the certificate be granted: , · "At the present time, there is no public transportation facilities over the entire portion of this route and this application is for the purpose of providing intrastate service.. to points. between Farm ville and Clarksville,, Virginia1• whieh at the present. page 63 rtime has no public transportation except on the part of the route between Keysville and Barnes Junction,. Virginia.'' You did not say anything in there about connections with all the-other lines you have or the interstate service you propose to render, so the application stands on its own feet,. isn't that cor- rect? · A. Does that application say anything about the restriction: we propose to admit that we should have in there'? Q. Yes, oh yes. A. That application, I did not write it myself but the man who prepared it took it for granted that you would. take the whole application into consideration. Q. You signed it? - A.· I know I did,. but the application goes on further and men tions the restriction, which shows that we did that-that we did recognize the eighteen miles. · Q. You .misunderstood me. I said that the application you have here makes no mention of the advantages given to these people to travel to Washington and points North, East and WesL -The application as written stands on its own feet between Fa.rm-· ville and Clarksville. You don't really mean that? page 64 } A. There are so many advantages to those people and · the Greyhound people would benefit by it too. It would just take too much paper to mention all of it. , Q. So you were really saving paper'? A. Saving paper and I would rather answer your questions than do so much writing. . · Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. · Commonwealth. 45 S. A. Jessup~ Q. In working out y9ur schequles North and South over this Clarksville-Farmville route, has any effort been made to syn chroniz~ those schedules with the· Greyhound schedules at Keys ville and Barnes Junction? A. I could not answer that. My Traffic Manager made .that out and he is not here today and I really don~t know but I would say that he did all that he could to make the different connections with our own lines. Q. With your line? A. Yes, with our own lines, and then do the best he could with other lines because we have no control over any bus lines for at any time they can change their schedules. _ ·Q. But you don't know whether if you carried a passenger North from Clarksville that wanted· to go to Burkeville whether you woul~ synchronize with our sch~dule at Keysville or Barnes Junction? A. No, I could not say beca~e he did make the schedules to make connections with our schedules North and South. page 65 ~ Q. It is the purpo~e and plan of your Cotiipany and the Greyhound Company that you make connection where they cross each other? A. Yes. . Q. Can we understand that that will be done where it can reasonably be done if you get your certificate? . A. Certainly we will and we owe it· to our people to give them the best service we can and that means if they can go to a place quicker and more conveniently by the Greyhound, although we :i:nay finally get around to the place like you do by going to Burke ville to go to Farmville, if we were connecting with the Greyhound, we would give it to them at Barnes Junction, and by giving it to them let them save time and money. Q. Coming to the restriction I have proposed instead of the. one in the application, qo you take the position that when your Company has an exclusive franchise over a road, that it is your privilege to carry every passenger that goes over that road, re gardless of where he is going? A .. When it is the most convenient to him I do; and when not convenient, I do tiot. I tell all of my men to use the slogan that I suppose I founded: "The passenger is the first con-. page 66 ~ sideration". That is the 'way in my mind to build up bus transportation. . · Q. You stated a moment ago that, if you· were operating the Greyhound on the haul between Keysville and Farmville1 you would prefer. for the passenger~s sake that he take your route di..;. rectly up route 15 rather than go around Burkeville? 46 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia S. A. Jessup. A. If it is more convenient. . Q. It is a straight haul of 18 miles and around 32 miles by the Greyhound and yet you would route him direct if you were operating the Greyhound? . A. If we had an operation to Keysville and he could get to Farmville quicker by the other route, I would send him that way. Q. Look at your map going from Farmville North to Char lottesville, you go over highway 18 and highway 20, and then on that blue line straight into Charlottesville? A. Are you talking about the Virginia Stage Lines? Q. Yes. \ A. Over-15? Q. Over 15, then 20 and tp.en on 613? A. Yes. Q. Now when you take a passenger to Fork Union you bring him down on that blue line from Charlottesville page 67 } to Scottsville and then over the brown line East to Fork Union, would you not? A. Yes, that is the way our franchise runs. Q. The James River Bus Line leases the certificate owned by the Atlantic Greyhound marked in yellow and goes from Rich mond to Fork Union and then South to Dilwyn. If the J am~s . . River Bus Line would apply from Dixie to Charlottesville over secondary highway 642, that is one leg of a triangle as against two,. would you make any objection to that'? Senator Wicker: This.is all very interesting but I can't see that it has any bearing on this case. · Judge Shewmake: I realize that that gives you some concern. Senator Wicker: It gives me some concern as to asking questions in regard to other routes instead of the route in question. Judge Shewmake: It is a par.t of the route. It is from Charlottesville to Farmvi.lle. page 68 } Senator Wicker: No, the part in question is from Farmville to Clarks-- ville. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. C@mmonwealth. 47. S .. A .. Jessup.. Chairman Appersom: " The Commission is of the ·opinion that the evidence is relevant :and.should be ·admitted Judge Shewmake~ I might ask counsel if they are willing to limit all consideration to what is shown on the little line between Farmville and Clarks -ville? .Senator Wicker~ Certainly not, but questions as to the convenience of the route :should be limited to the route in question or whether it has direct ~onnectiom: There is no route in. question. between. Charlottes ville and Richmond and the question was asked as to .a competing route between Charlottesville and Richmond. · · Chairman Apperson: The Commission has ruled that the question is relevant. Read the question, Mrs. Shuman. page 69 ~ Nate~ Question read as follows: "'Q. The .James River Bus Line leases the certificate owned by the Atlantic Greyhound marked in yellow and goes from Rich mond to Fork Union and then South to Dilwyn. If the James River Bus Line would apply from Dixie to Charlottesville over secondary highway 642, that is one leg of a triangle as against two, would you make any objection to that?" A. I am not in position to say, J udg~ whether I would or would not. I am kind of the opinion. that I would not, bu.t I am not sure. Q. You would wait and see? A. I would give it right much thought. : Q. Isn't it, Mr. Jessup, identically the proposition which you suggested from Farmville to Keysville via Burkeville? A. I don't think so because after you get into Charlottesville, you have a dead end, and your next operation is over in the moun tains. I think if you ran a bus in there it would help me, without .giving it any more thought,-because you would bring the people from Dixie over there ·and I would have a chance page 70 } to haul them in a half dozen different directions. Q. You have that chance now when they come over your blue line the combination of your blue line and the brown. line'? · A. Well, we are operating all around Charlottesville over every good road we can possibly make expenses on. On some of them you don't. 4$ Suimeme O'&nrt.of Appeaits of Vilrgjnia R. A .. Trice. RE-DffiECT EXAMINATION. Semtor Wicker: Q. You were asked whether the Greyhound did not already serve Keysville and Clarksville? . Ju Senator Wicker: I just wanted to get that into the record .. Witness stood aside. page 71 r MR. R. A. TRICE,. a witness introduced on behalf of applicant,. being firs(; duly sworn,· testified as follows~ DIRECT EXAMINATION. By Senator Wicker: Q. State your ,name and business connection. A. R. A. Trice, Supervisor of Virginia. Stage Lines, Danville,. Va. Q. Are ·you familiar with the existing schedules of your bus line serving th~ territory around the points on which this applica- tion is now pending? · A. Yes, Sir. Q. Specifically, will you tell the Commission just what service is av-ailable for anybody that wants to go to-say from Farmville to Clarksville or vice versa? ' A. There are two routes the passenge1· can travel from Farm . ville to Clarksville, one from Farmville to Burkeville back. to Halifax and South ~oston to Clarksville, and then one from Farm- ville to Blackstone. . Q. Take the route via. Burkeville first. A. This schedule is taken from the September edition· page 72 ~ of Russell'~ Guide. Q. That is a standard passenger bus line guide'? Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Qommonwealth. 49 R. A. Trice. A. Yes, motor bus line. Leave Farmville 9 :55, arrive Burk~ ville 10 :26 A. M.; leave Burkeville 11 :52 A. M., arrive Halifax 2:20 P. M.; leave Halifax 4:02 P. M., arrive South Boston 4:11 P. M.; leave South Boston 6 :48 and arrive Clarksville 7 :32 P. M. Q. Do I understand on that route via Burkeville this is the Greyhound? A. Yes, except Halifax· to South Boston. Q. They use the Greyhound and existing facilities from 9 :55 in the morning until 7 :30 at night mth several different changes and lay overs? · A. Yes. Q. That is the trip in the morning? · . A. Yes. Q. What· about the afternoon? A. Leave Farmville 5:10 P. M., arrive Burkeville 5:41 P. -M.; leaving Burkeville at 7:53 P. M~,. arriving South Boston 9:54 P. M.; leaving South Boston at 10:26 P. M. and arriving Clarks ville 11 :10 P. M. and that is Greyhound aH the way. Q. And that is exactly six hours? page 73 } A. Yes. Q. The first one is nine and a hall hours? A. Yes. Q. Now take it via Blackstone. A. 9 :55 A. M. leaving Farmville arriving Blackstone 11 :31 A. M., leaving Blackstone· at 12:30 P. M., arriving Clarksville 2:42 P. M. Q. That is approximately four and three quarter hours? A. That is true. Q. Any afternoon service? A. Leaving Farmville 5:10 P. M., arriving Blackstone 6:41 P. M.; leaving Blackstone at 9:20 P. M., arriving Clarksville 11:29 P. M. Q. And that is something over six hours? A. That is true. . Q. Just as a comparison take the schedule filed with this ap- plication-you have given the existing service now going from Farmville to Clarksville, as near as I could see it, it ran some six hours or so upward,-what is the service proposed by the Vir ginia Stage Lines from Farmville to Clarksville? A. The total service is about two hours, one hour and fifty minutes. · page 74 } Q. Ten minutes less than two hours? A. Yes. Q. Leaving Farmville at 8:20? A. Arriving at Clarksville at 10 :10. 50 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia R. A. Trice. Q. Leaving Farmville at 2:20? A. Arriving Clarksville 4:10. Q. Leaving Farmville at 7:50? A. Arriving Clarksville 9 :40. Q. In each case an hour and fifty minutes? A. Yes. Q. As compared to the other six hours or more? A. That is true. Q. Take it the other way from Clarksville to Farmville, three · trips a day proposed by the Virginia Stage Lines, what is the length of time there? A. One hour and fifty minutes. Q. One hour and fifty minutes each? A. Yes. . Q. · Take the existing facilities, coming by existing facilities, the Greyhound and any others via Burkeville and leaving Clarksville at what time? A. l:15 P. M. Q. Skipping the intermediate stops, what time would page 75 ~ you reach Farmville? A. That is routed via South Boston and Halifax, ar riving Farmville 7:04 P. M. Q. Almost six hours'? ·A. Yes. Q. Now another trip there leaving Clarksville at 4:5.5 P. M.? A. That is also by South Boston and Halifax and arriving Farmville 11 :37 P. M. Q. Six hours? A. Yes. Q. Take it via Biackstone from Clarksville to Farmville, using all existing facilities, going by Blackstone, you leave Clarks ville at 4:07 A. M. A. 4:07 A. M. Q. And you get to Farmville at what time'? A. 10:17 A. M. Q. That is a little over six hours? A. Yes. Q. And there is a trip at 12 :01 mid-day'? A. That is true. Q. And that gets to Farmville at what time? A. 7:04 P. M. Q. Seven hours? page 76 ~ A. Yes. · Q. And here is one leaving -Clarksville at 7 :36'? A. And arrives Farmville 11 :37. · Virginia Stag~e Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 5l R. A. Trice. Q.. Four hours and one minute! A. Yes. Q. And eoming back the proposed schedule of the Virginia Stage Lines would be less than two hours each way? A. That is true. Q. Now, Mr. Trice., about fares. Fares are based on mileage, :are they not? A. Yes, Sir, that is true. Q. Can you give the Commission a comparison of the cost to the public from Clarksville to Farmville and the two points under existing service compared with the fares over what they would be if this certificate is granted? A. I don't believe I have that fare except our own fares filed with the Commission. I have the comparison to Keysville. Q. Wh,at is the passenger fare from Farmville to Clarksville, under the existing service, going by the existing service? page 77 } A. Barnes Junction via South Boston to Clarksville 85 cents. That is from Barnes Junction. I do not have the fare from Clarksville to Farmville. I have it compiled from Keysville to Barnes Junction. Q. Take it from Barnes Junction to Clarksville. A. Via the Greyhound eighty five cents, via the direct route 35 cents. Q. The present cost is 85 cents going around? A. That is correct. Q. And if this certificate is granted? A. Thirty five cents. Q. Is that a cut rate or is it based on shorter mileage? A. It is based on shorter mileage? Q. You have another comparison, what is that?· A. Farmville and Keysville. Q. What is that'? A. Via Burkeville at present it costs 75 cents and if this cer- tificate is granted, forty five cents direct rout~ Q. Do you have the rate via Blackstone? A. That would not be the route. Q. Have you prepared some exhibits showing the present ser vice that you have been testifying to on these certificates via the Burkeville route? page 78 l A. The exhibits were prepared by the Traffic De partment. Q. And the present service by the Blackstone route and the present service all the way from Charlottesville via Lynchburg and South Boston and the present service between Charlottes- I • ·S:2 Snp:re:me Court of Appeals of Viigima, .B .. "!,[. A mole. ville and the North Carolina. line,. and then the proposed service,, you hav~ those exlul>its? -·,A. Yes.· Senator Wicker: I would like to offer these.. We have copies. These are the details. Chairman Apperson: There is no obiection to that? Judge Shewmake:. No. Chairman Apperson: They ma~ be filed. 1 Note: Filed Exhibit "Tric-e No. 5 ' .. Senator Wicker: Q. Mr. Trice,. the application of the Virginia Stage LineS',.. while dealing .with passengers,. also. covers the passenger baggage ·and light express? A. That is true. . page 79 ~ Q. There is some demand for light·express? A. I was in Farmville last week about this applica tion and was informed that there is no express servic-e or freight service from Farmville to Keys.ville. ':I'here would be some freight service from Keysville to Barnes Junction hut nothing: from Farmville serving that territory. Q. Was there any need for any? A. From the people I talked with, quite a need for it. Q. In what line? A. One gentleman I talked with was in the motor parts busi ness. He could not sell to the people at Keysville and they had to get them out of Richmond. page 80 f MR. B. M .. Al\10LE, a witness introduced on behalf of Atlantic Greyhound Lines, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: · DIRECT EXAMINATIQN. By Judge Shewmake: Q. Your name is· B. M. A.mole? A. Yes. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 53 B. M. Amole. . Q. ·What office or.position do you hold with the Atlantic Grey hound Corporation? A. Division Manager of the State of Virginia .. Q. Are you familiar with the traffic situation in the territory involved in this application? A. I think so. Q. How long have you been with the Greyhound Corporation? A. Since the beginning of the predecessor company, twenty one years. Q. Do you remember the Atlantic Greyhound holding and operating a certificate for tli_e tr'ansportation of passengers be- tween Farmville and Keysville? · A. We did. It was purchased with the properties and other certificates of the Southern_ Passenger Motor Lines June 13th, 1934, and operated a very short time and did not page 81 t carry anybody, and some six or seven years ago we operated one trip a week. Chairman Apperson: Q. From Farmville to Keysville? A. Yes, and as far as I know, we operated once a week and we never had a complaint or were \ve asked that the volum~ be in creased, and we asked for permission to discontinue the service. Q. Will you tell the Commission what the· volume of service is that you offer under your certificate P-1089 between Richmond and Danville over U. S. Highway No. 360, which includes as a part of the route named Highway No. 360 between Keysville and Barnes Junction? A. There are eight trips daily over that highway. Q. Will you give the hour at which they run? A. Leaving Keysville, they leave at 1 :12 A. M. Q. Is that going towards Danville? A. Towards Barnes Junction and Danville: 4:21 A. M.; 9:39 A ..M.; 10:17 A. M.; 12:31 P. M.; 4:26 P. M:; 8:32 P. M. and 11 :27 P. M.; running time· to Barnes Junction is 36 minutes, .so · t~ey arrive there thirty six minutes later. The returning schedule leaves Barnes Junction at 4:15 A. M.; 6:05 A. M.; 10:01 A. M.; 11:45 A. M.; 1:15 P. M.; 4:55 page 82 t P. M.; 8:15 P. M. and 11:20 P. M.; running time is the same on the return schedule. Q. The Atlantic Greyhound Corporation also operates be tween Blackstone and Farmville and points East and West of those two points daily, does it not? A .. That is correct. We operate three schedules in each direc tion daily between those points. 54 Supreme Com·t of Appeals of Virginia B. M. Amole. . Q. Lookmg at the map which has been introduced in evidence, if a citizen of Mecklenburg County living in the neighborhood of Barnes Junction wishes to go to Farmville by the Greyhound's operation, how would he go? A. Go to Burkeville and then to Farmville over 360 to Burke ,. ville and 460 to Farmville from Burkeville. Q. Have you ever had any complaints or requests for this ser vice from the section of Barnes Junction, Wyliesburg, and Keys ville, that is, to have faster service to Farmville? A. No, Sir, to my knowledge we have not had complaints and we did at one time consider while we still had the certificate from Keysville to Farmville the possibility of one or two trips instead of coming to Richmond via Burkeville to go via Farmville and Cumberland Courthouse and then to Richmond over U. S. 60, but it was the opinion of the Company that the traffic page 83 ~ did not move that way and that there was no need for the service. Q. If a citizen of Clarksville desires to go to Washington, and in this connection I will include people in Clarksville, Boydton, Chase City, Barnes Junction, Wyliesburg and Keysville, if any of those people want to go to Wa~hington, what facilities are af forded him by the Greyhound? A. From all of those towns named there is direct service to Richmond and direct service from Richmond to Washington. Q. Is the connection in Richmond an immediate connection or do they have to wait? A. In every instance- iii is not over forty five minutes and in many cases thirty minutes. Just enough time for a sandwich. Q. That is a si~gle change, nothing mote than from one bus to another"t A. That is correct and the Richmond Grevhound and Atlantic Greyhound operate out of the same terminai. Q. So that, if a new service is contemplated from Farmville, Barnes Junction, Keysville and into Clarksville and from Farm ville, Charlottesville, Scottsville and .Manassas, that would be a duplication between Mecklenburg and Lunenburg Counties, a · duplication of the service between those points and page 84 ~ points North of Washington and Washington of the service run by the Greyhound now? A. Yes, that would be a duplication of their service. Q. Has there been any inability to move that traffic from Mecklenburg and Lunenburg Counties to points North? A. No. That service until the war came along was costing us money to operate. It was not a profitable service. . Q. You mean the intrastate service? A. The entire service we were rendering. 1 •. Virginia S.ta;ge Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. ss B. M. Amole. Q. The intrastate an.d interstate? A. That is correct. Q. Has any request ever been made of the Greyhound Cor poration to inaugurate service between. Clarksville and Barnes J"unction over U. S. IB.ghway 15? You appear to cover every •other point except those two. A. To my knowledge we have ·not had a request for that ser ·vice. Q. You have been connected with the Greyhound and in close touch with the situation for a number of years? A. Yes. I was Assistant Traffic Manager up until 1942 and in 1943 I came to Richmond and have been Division Manager and ·one request we had was to put a service from South Boston a :short distance over 304, junction of 360 and 304, and we put it on immediately as soon as the Commission approved it. ·page 85 } Q. In every instance in this Southside territory where · , request has been made of the Greyhound Corporation 1n the past ten years to inaugurate service, and it was shown that the need was substantial, has there been any trouble in inaugurat ing that service? A. No. Q. Would there be in. the future? A. No. CROSS EXAMINATION.. .By Senator Wicker: Q. Your counsel asked you, if this was approved, whether a passenger could not get on our bus at Clarksville and go through to Wru:ihington, and you were asked if that would not oo a dupfi..;_ cation of the Greyhound Service that now goes from Clark.Bville to Richmond and Richmond to Washington, and you said that it would be a duplication? · A. There were a.number of towns named besides Clarksville. Q. Yes. Did you mean to imply that that would be a wroli.g thing or harmful? A. The question was how many lines will traffic bear in that territory and still support the service. Q. Do you mean to imply or tell the Commission that page 86 .~ that would be harmful to have a duplication of service? A. I think that would be a matter of opinion. Q. I am askingyouropinion. A. From what I know of that territory, I don't think there would be any need for the service into Washington, judging from out experience prior to the war. 56 Supreme (;f)urt of Appeals· o.f Virgirifa · B. M. Amole. Q. Is it or not true that the Sta:te of Virginia is today filled with duplications· that are operating successfully? A. Oh yes. . There are a great many of those and i~ most of those you will find that the density is· greater than in this particu lar area. Q. And the density of bus service is greater than in this terri- tory? A. Yes, ·we have a lot of people between here and Norfolk and from Lynchburg to Washington. Q. For instance there is a; green line running up 29· through Alexandria and Washington and through Charlottesvi1le operated' hy the Virginia; Stage Lines,. and out of Lynchburg a purple line of the Atlantic Greyhound over 460 through Farmville to Rich,... mond and the Greyhound has a line from Richmond to Wash ington, so that. is a; dnplication between Lynchburg and Wash- ington? . . A. You may call it a duplication but I happen to page 87 ~ know who is carrying the business. and it is not the Greyhound. . Q. But you are operating'? A. Yes. Q. And if today if the Virginia Stage Lines was applying for a line from here to Washington, you would be opposing that be cause that would be a duplication from Washington to Lynch burg? A. I don't think so. Q. Isn't that exacily what you are doing? Look at Clarksville and here is Barnes Junction and counsel asked you about the line from Clarksville which we are applying for,. running on the red line, and then over the brown line and the blue line connecting: through Charlottesville with the green line into Washington, and asked you if that would not be a duplication and you testified that it would. · J t1;tlge Shewmake: My question was would it be an unnecessary duplication. Senator "\Vicker: ~ All right,, an unnecessary duplication, and you testified it wo._uld because you had a line from Clarksville to Richmond and from Richmond to Washington, and if we were a polying: page 88 ~ for the direct line from Lynchburg to Washington that we have already, you would testify that it would be an l)IlD.ecessary duplication because you have a line from Lynchburg to Richmond and from Richmpnd to Washington? . Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 57 B. M. Amole. A. I don't think so because the density of traffic would be an entirely different situation. Q. Now let's sit right down and look at the map. Right down in that section you have got a line from South Boston over to Clarksville over route 58? A. Yes. Q. And the Virginia Stage Lines has a route from South Boston to Clarksville via Cluster Springs and Virgilina over route 96 and route 49? A. Yes. · Q. Is that an unnecessary duplication? A. I think we were here when that application was made and th~ record will speak for itself. Q. I am no.tasking you what was said but what it is. A. The Commission has d~cided that application and you are asking me to say whether they were right or wrong. Q. I am simply asking you whether in your opinion t_hat is an unnecessary duplication. page 89 r A. During war times I don't think it was from the testimony I heard in the application. . Q. You testified recently in regard to an application to put an additional line from that section of South Boston to 304? A. Approximately 304, yes. Q. So you don't take the position that duplication is a bad thing? . A. We did that witho~t operating any additiona_l lines by using buses in that area. Q. As a matter of fact, the only' time duplication is bad is when a competitor to the Greyhound is going to get a certificate? A. No, that is true in our own company. We don't duplicate our own service. Q. If you all want to put on a duplicating service it is all right, but if a competitor wants to put one on, it, is a different matter? A. I can't think of a- place where we have tried to put on one against a competitor in a long time. Q. You were· asked as to how they got the service, the territory in question and you said you had eight trips daily and page 90 r that they could go to Burkeville or Blackstone? A. There are eight trips daily and the transfer is be tween those two points. ' Q. You don't question the testimony that on the average it takes six or seven hours to get from Clarksville to Farmville?· A. No, t.he schedules as given are correct but, if there had been any demand for those connections, the time would not have been that long. · 58 Supreme Court .of Appeals of Virginia B. M. Amole. Q. You don't question the fact that, as it· stands, it takes from six to seven hours to cover the territory that the Virginia Stage Lines is offering to cover in less than two hours? A. You are speaking of our schedules as they exist today? Q. That is correct. · A. That is true. The six to seven hours is an approximation. Q. That is true, one trip is four hours. A. Where the connections are close it is much shorter. Q. Now you speak of having had a certificate that you pur chased and operated a while between Farmville and Keysville back in 1934? page 91 ~ A. Yes. Q. You operated on a weekly basis to keep the certi ficate alive? A. We operated a short time and gave daily service and it was losing so much money with no patronage the Commission allowed us to put on the one trip. . · Q. At that time when you operated into Keysville where could the people go when they go there? A. We had the same service into Keysville as we have now. · Q. Wheii Mr. Jessup was on the stand he was asked what his attitude might be in event there was some application to Dixie. Do I understand your position, as taken by your counsel, is that you oppose this application because· you contend that this is operating over your route for eighteen miles of the fifty eight miles of the proposed route, which parallels that route for that eighteen ni.iles between ·Keysville and Barnes Junction? A. Tha.t is one of the reasons. Q. Now let me ask you if forty of the fifty eight miles of the proposed route does not operate over any of the route you operate over, is that correct?· A. That is the approximate mileage. I have not checked it. page 92} Q. Twenty one miles from Farmville to Keysville and nineteen miles from Barnes Junction to Clarks ville? A. Yes. Q. Let me ask you, suppose instead of our proposed line dove tailing yours for only eighteen miles, suppose it only dovetailed from the point where route 47 comes in .to route 15 below Barnes Junction and only dovetailed that for eight miles, would you still consider that to be operating over your route? A. You mean the identical application here n~w? Q. Yes, if it was only eight of the fifty eight miles instead of eighteen of the fifty eight? · A. I don't make the policy for the Company in deciding cases, Vil:g,inia .:stage lines, Inc., v. C0mmonwealth. S9 B. M. Amole. tdeciding on these applications, but I certainly think that would· -reduce the ·ob)eetiofl. I can't say to what extent. · Q. Suppose "it was ·only Olle half of a mile over your ,route would you stlll take the position your counsel takes? A. I would like to 'Say that I don't think there was any opposi ·tion over the five miles that· came into Farm.ville over U. S. 460 for. a cfistanee of five miles. There was n.ot any opposition. to that. page 93 ~ Q. I don't know, but I ask you suppose this was ·a half mile or one ·mile, yoa th.ink that there would be a :reduction in the opposition but the principle would .still be pres ,ent? · A. I could not answer that but it would be decided on. policy. Q. And f.~om policy standpoint you might change? A. We did not object at Farmville. · ·Q. But you still take the position that you. had a right to objeot! A. Yes. RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION. :By Judge Shewmake: . Q. Before you put that map down I ask you if the inauguration •of service to W-ashington from Clarksville over Highway No. 15 to Farmville and 'then. North to Charlottesville·· by the Virginia Stage Lines would be an unnecessary duplication. of service from Clarksville to W-ashington now rendered by the Atlantic Grey hound Corporation. Please look at· the map and see if you see :any elbows such as Senator Wicker has referred to or is it true that the Richmond Greyhound is directly to the North page 94 t and· the Atlantic Greyhound to the East? A. That is true. Q. And the mileage is practically the same? A. I have not checked the mileage but about the .same distance. CROSS EXAMINATION.. By Mr. Seibert: Q. How lon.g since yoa operated between Farmville and Keys ville'? A. I could not answer that exactly but a,round 1941 or 1942. Q. Did the war have anything to do with it and the need for buses? A. No, we were just operating one round trip on Sunday, but since you mentioned it, I believe it came off in 1941 before the war sta.rted. ~Q Supr~ C'ourt <>f Appears of Viirginim B. M. Amole.. Judge Shewmake: Q. When you first bought th~ franchise from Mr. Falwrll youz operated it on hiiiJ schedule fora year orm.or:e?.' A. Yes for sometime. Q. And lost money every day? A. Yes. Q. And then the Commission ail.lowed you to f1I)erate one trip a week to keep it alive? page 95 ~ A. Yes. · Q.. And then you decided. it was. :mot worth keeping: alive? A. We decided to desist~ Senator Wickerr . Q .. If there isn"t a;ny bm,iness ~nd if worthleSl3' and so sparsely settled, why are you objecting to the Virginia Stage Lines getting: a certificate? A. I don't think there is any objection to the certificate as be tween Keysville and Farmville. The obj.action is over 360 and the service from Clarksville. Q. You don't claim there is any density of population between. Barnes Junction a;nd Keysville? A. More in my opinion than between. Keysville and Farmville .. Q. Isn't that the most sparsely settled section there is between. Keysville and Barnes. Junction? A. No,. I think the one between Keysville and Farmville is: with the exception of Hampden-Sydney. Q. Did not your counsel state tha.t Barnes Junction is two cross road i and not a single town located between Barnes, June- ". tion and route 15 between Keysville and Eames Junotion·? A. Wyliesburg and Ontario. - Q. And there is no tl'affio. of any consequence'? page 96 t A. Not a great deal. Q. Then why are you obiecting? A. You heard of the little boy who stole cherries. out of the basket and they were finally all gone; You take a little here and there and finally the whole thing is gone. - Q! Y pu thil$. this is all right but if enough is g:ranted A. If enough is granted>. the whole thing will soon be gone. ·Judge Shewmake; Q. If you had not give away that five miles: out of Farmville when.the Virginia Stage Lines wanted to come in, you would not .have had this problem? A. I have thought of that a good many times. Virginia St~ge .Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 61 Senator Wicker: . . You did not think you could properly oppose that? A. I think we had a right to. Q. You don't think you could have kept the Commis$ion from gr:1nting that application? A. I don't know when it was granted. I did not see the appli- cation. · Witness stood aside. page 97 } Chairman Apperson: Have these answers been filed? Judge Shewmake: They were filed. Chairman Apperson: That is all the evidence? Judge Shewmake: Yes~ I wish to state to the Commission the position that the Atlantic Greyhound occupies in regard to this application m_ore clearly than I could state it at the outset of this proceeding. It must be apparent to the Commission by now that the actual route applied for by this Company between Farmville and Clarks ville has very little to d.o with the differences between these two companies in this proceeding. Mr. Jessup,. President of the Com pany making the application,. stated himself on the stand that·, if this proposed route had to stand by itself and depend on the revemle derived from the patronage of the people on that route, he would not have filed it, and a further examination showed that he agreed with me that it could not be reasonably ex page 98 } pected that sufficient revenue on that route between Clarksville arid Farmville alone could be expected to pay the expenses of the operation. Then, if that is true, public convenience and necessity does not exist and there are· innumer able authorities to support thai statement. That is the reason I asked very few questions after the first one or two because the burden of their testimony was from these witnesses who stated that they lived along this route and that it would be a nice thing; these resolutions from Dra.kes Branch state that it would be of substantial public benefit and of great value to the people of Drakes Branch. Of course it would be, but that is not proof of public convenience and necessity. The object of this application, as the Commission must see, and as testified to by witnesses for the competing companies, is 62 Supre:me Court of Appeals of .Virginia for the operation of a comparatively duplicate service from Clarksville to the· North Carolina and District of Columbia lines in competition with the Atlantic Greyhound and Richmond Greyhound working in conjunction with each other. That is the unnecessary duplication of service which the Supreme Court of Appeals has said must not be permitted. page 99 } Therefore, I want to leave those thoughts with t.he Commission, and I think the Commission was very wise in asking counsel for applicant for a memorandum on the law and to let me reply ~o it. The facts are not important. The facts are disposed of by Mr. Jessup himself. Senator Wicker: If I might speak about twenty words myself. I take the posi tion first that I think Mr. Jessup did not agree specifically with Mr. Shewmake but took the position that any common carrier bus man with any experience at all would take, and that is, that there is hardly a certificate in the State of Virginia standing alone and. divorced from any other connection, North, East, South or West, that would of itself be attractive or justify service as it would when it is coupled up with connections North, South, East and West or other points. Just as Judge Shewmake says when he speaks of duplication of servic~ from Clarksville to Washington, he brings out the fact that the service from Clarksville to page 100 } Washington is not rendered by one certificate holder, but rendered by the Atlantb Greyhound Lines to ~ichmond and by another corporation from Richmond to Wash ington, with a similarity in names but an entirely different cor poration. No one certificate. The records of the State Corpora tion Commission, which are judicially noted by the Commic;sion ers, will show that the records are crammed full of applications after applications by Judge Shewmake's client, which could not possibly st.and on their own foundations. The Commission can ask Mr. Seibert, of the Transportation Division, and any cursory examination of the Greyhound's records will show certificate after certificate for comparatively short lines, even shorter than these fifty eight miles we are applying for, that could not possibly be justified, that have nothing like the public support this appli cation has. This is shown by the testimony of .Mr. Amole alone. He testified that he put on, purely as a convenience over route 304 to help the people of South Boston, a little strip of five miles. There could not be possibly enough business in that page 101 ~ strip to support that, when there are alternate routes all around them. But that is all right. Our applica tion is based, like the Greyhound's applications have been, on the basis of connecting links. We leave that thought with the Commission, that there already exists by action of the Commis- Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v~ Commonwealth. 63 sion service from Washington on down through Charlottesville, the center of the State, on down. to Farmville, served by this :applicant, the Virginia Stage Lines. That is all by this applicant, the Virginia Stage Lines, from W ashing·on down and this appli -cant holds a certificate from Clarksville South to the North Caro lina line. The applicant is asking merely for this connecting link in here between its holdings on the North and its holdings on the South. Instead of being a duplication, this operation will pri marily be of substantial benefit to the public in connecting up this route rather than leaving this gap on forty of the fifty eight .miles, over which, there has already been testified, there is no service whatever. Judge Shewmake: May I express this thought? I know you don't want to make the wrong statement. Those certificates that the page 102 } Greyhound holds were acquired by purchase and not by applications. We only have one certificate that we got by application in Virginia. Senator Wicker: I am glad to be corrected, but when you acquired it by .Pur..; chase, you must have come in and asked for the approval of the transfer to you, so you stand in the position of vouching for the public convenience and necessity for it. page 103} City of Richmond 12th day of JuneJ 1946 Case No. 8229 In the matter of the application of Virginia Stage Lines, In corporated, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The Commission, after maturely considering this matter, is of the opinion the certificate applied for should be denied: IT IS ORDERED that the application of Virginia Stage Lines, 1ncorporated, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate motor vehicles for the transportation of passengers, baggage, mail, express and newspapers between Farmville and Clarksville, Virginia, over U. S. Highway 15, be, arid the same is hereby, denied. page 104 ~ OPINION. , Downs, Chairman of the Commission. This proceeding was instituted on September 8, 1945, upon the application of Virginia Stage Lines, Incorporated, (hereinafter 64 · Supreme Court of Ap~eals o.f Virginia• -. sometimes referred to as Stage Lines), under Chapter 1291 Acts·of the General Assembly: of .1942,. sometimes referred to as the Vir ginia Motor Catll'ier Act. of 1936, as amended,. for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a common carrier for the, ha;ndling of newspapers,. expres.~,. mail and baggage, along with passengers by -motor vehicle on the following route: '·':From Farmville,, Virginia. to: Clarksville, Virginia over· US Highway 15, serving all intermediate points and return over same route. No passengers transported wfi.ose origin is Keysville and destination Barnes Junction and/or intermediate points between such points or the rev.erse. Passengers will be transported whose origin is Keysville or Barnes Junction or intermediate points when destined to points. beyond Keysville or Barnes Junction in either direction or the reverse.'' Stage Lines is a Virginia corporation with its principal office at Charlottesville1 Virginia, and is the holder and operator of numer ous certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by thP State Corporation Commission, via various routes as specified in the certificates, and especially via Route 29 from the Virginia Distrfot · of Columbia Line to Charlottesville, thence via Route 613 from Charlottesville to Scottsville, thence via Route 20 from Scottsville to Dillwyn, thence via Route 15 from Dillwyn to Farmville and also via Route 49 from Clarksville to Virgilina at the Virginia-North Carolina Line. · All preliminary steps necessary to mature the application were properly taken and the exhibits required to be furnished by statute and by the rules and regulations of the Commission were pre~ented. The hearing on the said application was held on the third day of October 1945. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Greyhound) appeared at the hearing as an objector and duly filed its answer and objections to the said application. The grounds of objection may be sum- marized as follows: page 105 t 1. The operation proposed by the Applicant c·annot. be justified on grounds of public convenience and necessity. 2. The public convenience and necessity over the route which the Applicant proposes to operate between Keysville and Barnes Junctfon is now being adequately served by the present certificate holder, Atlantic Greyhound Corporation. 3. The granting of the certificate applied for would con~titute an act of grave injustice· to Atlantic Greyhound Corporation and would be in direct contravention of sub-section c) of Section 6 of Chsipter 129 of the Acts of the General Assembly, 1936. Virginia Stage· Lines, Ina,, v. Commonwealth. 65 Greyhound is a Virginia corporation with its principal office at Richmond, Virginia, and is the holder and operator of numerous certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by this Commission, authorizing common carrier :passenger service by motor vehicle on the public highways of Virginia by various ro-utes as specified in the certificates, and especially via Route 360 from Richmond to Amelia, Burkeville, Keysville, Barnes Junc tion, South Boston and Danville, and via Route 58 from Danville to CIJJ,rksville, Emporia, Suffolk and Norfolk. At the concll.JSion of the hearing counsel indicated a desire to prepare and file briefs. These briefs were duly presented and the final or reply brief of the applicant was filed on April 27, 1946. In the course of its brief at page 56 thereof, Greyhound declared that it was ready, willing and able to afford such service, over the rou.te applied for by Stage Lines, as the Commission might find to be necessary and convenient to the public need. On June 11, 1946, after the decision of the Court of Appeals, in the cases of Virginia Stage Lines, Incorporated vs. Commonwealth of Vir ginia, ex rel, etc., 185 Va. 390, h~d been rendered on June 10, 1946, Greyhound presented its application for a certificate over the same route applied for by Stage Lines herein. Accordingly, at the time of the entry of the final order· in this case, the Com mission had before it the application of Greyhound, as well as that of Stag_e Lines, for certificate of convenience and necessity over the route from Farmville to Clarksville via US Highway No. 15. page 106 } After consideration of the evidence, briefs of argu- ment and relevant records in the files of the Commis sion, the Comqiission (Commissioner Hooker not participating in the hearjng or the decision) entered an order on the 12th day of June 1946 denying the application of Stage Lines. On this same day, June 12, 1946, a proceeding was instituted upon the applica tion of Greyhound, filed on the previous day as aforesaid, and designated Case No. 8488. This case was set for hearing on July 17, l946, on which day the application of Greyhound was fully he~rd and the certificate applied for was granted. The decision of the Commission in this case is controlled by the language of Section 6(c), Chapter 129, Acts of General As sembly of 193e, which enactment. is sometimes known as the Vir ginia Motor Carrier Act. The pertinent portion of this statute is as follows: "Upon the filing of an application for a certificate of public convenience .and necessity, the commission shall, within a reason able time, fix a time and place of hearing of such application. If the commission shall find the proposed operation justified it shall issue a certificate to the applicant, subject to such terms, limita- 66 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virgin1a tions and restrictions as· the com.mission may deem proper. If the com.mission shall find the proposed operation not justified, the application shall be denied. No certificate shall be granted to an applicant proposing 1io operate over the route of any holder of a certificate when the public convenience and necessity with respect to such route is being adequately served by such certificate holder; and no certificate shall be granted to an applicant proposing to operate over the route of any holder of a certificate unless and until it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the commission that the service rendered by such certificate holder, over the said route, is inadequate to the public needs; and if the commission shall be of opinion that the service rendered by such certificate holder over the said route is in any respect inadequate to the public needs, such certificate liolder shall be given reasonable time ~nd opportunity to remedy such inadequacy before any certificate shall be granted to an applicant proposing to operate over such route." It "\\ill be readily seen from a consideration of the quoted por tion of the applicable statute that the first question to be decided is whether or not the proposed operation is justified; that is to say, whether or not the public convenience and necessity in the area sought to be served requires the service applied for. We are of the opinion that the record in this case amply demonstrates a need for the service proposed to be rendered and, page 107 t t_herefore, we have. found the proposed operation to be . justified. Once this is determined we must then make inquiry to find whether or not the proposed route is over the route of the holder of certificate of public convenience and neces sity from this Commission and if such is the case, such certificate holder must be given reasonable time and opportunity to render the service found to be necessary. Accordingly, we must deter mine whether or not the route applied for is over the route of an existing certificate holder. Greyhound has alleged that such is the case. The applicant has asserted that the route applied for is not now presently served by any carrier and, therefore, it, having justified the operation, is entitled to the certificate. The resolu- tion of these two conflicting positions depends upon the con struction of the language of the statute hereinbefore quoted. It is the view of Stage Lines that the aforesaid statute should be liberally construed in favor of an applicant on the theory that the statute restricts the use of public highways to those who are granted certificates by this Commission and therefore is in de rogation of the common law rights of the public to free and un- - trammeled use of public highways. '\Ve do not think this con tention meritorious for reasons clearly and consistently expressed by our Court, of Appeals. These reasons are most aptly put in the Virginia .Stage Lines, In~., v. Commonwealth. 67 case of Gruber vs. Commonwealth, 140 Va. 312. In this case when dealing with a .somewbat similar contention, Mr. Justice Sims said: "It is urged in argument for the applicant that the use of tbe ~ public highways is a right which is common to all citizens, in duding common carriers, which they are all entitled to exercise upon eqaul terms, without any discrimination whatsoever be tween them; that und~r said constitutional guaranties the State is obliged to allow all motor vehicle carriers, who may desire to do so, to use the public highways, subject only to such general reasonable rules and regulations as shall apply to all alike-such as the number and character of vehicles that each may use, and the like; and that the preference of right attempted to be given by the statute to those actually using the public highways on the specific date mentioned in the statute, is a discrimination in favor of them in violation of the aforesaid constitutional rights of others of such carriers who may at any time desire to use such page 108 ~ highways. . "* * * We deem it suffic~ent to say here that we -consider it settled, both in principle and upon authority, that, notwithstanding the constitutional guaranties aforesaid, no pri vate individual, firm, or corporation has any right to use the pub lic highways in the prosecution of the business of a common -carrier for hire without the consent of the State; that such consent may be altogether withheld or granted as a privilege upon such terms and conditions as the State may prescribe in the exercise ·of its police power; and that in such exercise of the police power there may be limitations and conditions, and thereby discrimina- tions made between those to whom the privilege is granted and denied, provided the discriminations are based on some reason- · able classification which is not purely arbitrary, does not disclose personal favoritism or prejudice, and is fair and just.'' This same approach to the problem is found in the West Vir ginia case of Reynolds Transportation Company vs. Public S6Tuic8 Commission, 26 S. E. 519. This case 'involved the constructioµ. ·of the We.st Virginia Motor Carrier Act which was patterned after Chapter 359 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1932. This . chapter was the Virginia statute governing motor carrier opera tions in this State until the passage of Chapter 129 by the 1936 Session of the General Assembly. At page 523 of his opinion Judge Fox said: "The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the 68 Sµpreme Court o·f Appeals of Virginia running of a; stage coach or omnibus. The fonner is the usual and ordin,ary right of a citizen, a right common to all,. while the latter is special, unusual,, and extraordinary. As to .the former, the· extent of the legislative power is that of regulation; but as to the 'latter, Its power is broader. The right may be wholly denied,. or it inay be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its 1 extraordinary nature. ' In keeping with the theme of these expressionsr we do not con ceive tl;tat the provisions of the Virginia Motor Carrier Act may· be said to be in derogation of any common law right but rather should be construed as conferring a privilege upon certain carriers; not generally available to the public. This privilege should only be conferred as the interest of the publlc dictates,. It is our view that the prirp.ary concern of this st~tute is to promote the public: wetl,J &:nd if a reasonable constmctiQn is available which accom plishes this end, it must be applied whether the same be in favor of or opposed to the interest of the applican.t. page 109 ~ An orderly discussion of the rights of the parties in this cijse and a cktermination of the question as to which of them is entitled to offer service over the route applied for herein by Stage Lin.es,. involves a. determination of that which is meant by the provisions of the Virginia Motor Carrier Act,. which have been herein.before set forth. In construing this same protjsio11, in Virginia 'Stage Lines> Incorporated vs. Common wealth, (Supra),. our Court of Appeals adopted the opinion of Corrup.issioner Apperson who, in expressing his view of the pur- -pose of the statute, said: · ''The law on the subject is clear,. specific and unequivocal,. and · it is my view thfl.t it was enacted by the General Assembly for the purpose of protecting the holders of existing certificates,. and preventing undu~ and ruinous competition to them from those who sought to serve the same territory and thus deprive them of that .which was theirs, rightfully acquired under a previously granted certificate." (Emphasis added). Adhering strictly to thii, view of the statute,. we must examine the record in this case to determine whether or not the proposed operation constitutes an invasion of the territory of Greyhound~ It will be seen th~t the terminal points of the proposed route are fa:rinville and Cltl,rksville. The length of the proposed route is approximately 56 miles,. of which the 20 miles between the junc tion of U. S. Highways Numbers 15 and 360, 2 miles north of Keysville, and Barnes J un~tion lie directly upon the route of Greyhound and approximately 2 miles thereof from the inter section of US Highway No. 15 and US Highway No. 58. to Clarks~ ville lie directly on the ro\J.te presently served by Greyhound. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 69 Therefore it appears that approximately 22 miles of the proposed route are directly served by the objector. Reference to the US Highway Map filed in evidence as Exhibit No. 2 discloses that all points of any importance in the whole territory affected by the proposed operation are already served by Greyhound. Both terminal points of the proposed route and Keysville, Wylliesburg and Barnes Junction, on the said route, are now served by Greyhound under certificates issued by this Commission. In addition, the following towns in and about the affected areas are ·presently served by Greyhound: Burkeville, Blackstone, Crewe, Chase City, Boydton, Victoria, Lunenburg, Halifax, Clover, South Boston and South Hill. page 110 ~ Thus it appears from the aforesaid highway map that while only two points on the route are touched by the applicant, the entire area is criss-crossed by the operation of Greyhound and· all important points proposed to be served are now being accommodated by the objector. In view of these facts, we must immediately inquire if the Legislature intended to pro tect operating territories of existing carriers from invasion by other carriers or merely to protect the precise highway over which existing· carriers afford service. In other words, we are called upon to decide whether or not a carrier which is, for all practical purposes, wholly serving a territory, is to be preferred when a certificate isto be granted authorizing direct service between two points in the territory. One of the fundamental reasons for the protection of an existing carrier is to prevent a diversion of its traffic and the resulting diminution of its revenues in order that such carrier may continue to provide efficient service to the public. That which the Vir ginia Stage Lines, Incorporated is attempting to do in this case amounts in our opinion to what the Interstate Commerce Com misdon de.scribes as "a projection into a new territory." In a case recently decided ·July 3 (July 3, 1946) and designated as MC 61598 SUB 24, the Commission said: "Smoky Mountain is not now and has not been operating in this territory. Its proposed operation would be a projection into a new territory, and would strike at the very heart of Stages' and Scenic's systems. There can be no doubt that the natural and. probable consequences would be a diversion of traffic. Applica tion denied.'' Pursuing this inquiry further we find that on November 19, 1924 in construing the moto1· carrier law as it then existed in Case Number 2105 "In the Matter of the Application of J. A. Towns, etc.'' reported in the report of the State Corporation Commission for 1924 at page 60, the Commission expressed itself, in part, as follows: 70 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia "What the ·law contemplates, in our opinion, is that the Com:.. mission should first consider the transportation needs of the territory sought to be served and determine whether public con venience and necessity demands the service sought to be rendered. If existing motor transportation is ample to reason page 111 ~ ably meet the demands of public convenience and neces_sity, no additional operation should be per mitted. ''On the other hand, we conclude if addit·ional motor vehicle carrier service is required a second step becomes necessary-that is, to deter mine whether the existing motor carrier servin,; such territory will provide such service in a· satisfactory manner, and if so, it should be perrp,itted to do so." (Emphasis added). The construction of the law, as it then existed, in such a clear and concise fashion is of inestimable value to us when we come to determine the issues in this case inasmuch as we have found nothing in later statutes or in decisions of our court which impairs the force of this expression. Indeed, our Court of Appeals, in the Virginia Stage Lines, Incorporated case, hereinbefore referred to, which case is the latest expression of the court on this·subject, discussed the legislative history of the present statute. In the course of this discussion it adverted to the Acts of the General Assembly of 1923 and to succeeding. legislation dealing with this subject matter and commented as follows: "The law which gave an existing certificate holder the right to an opportunity to furnish additional service before such right should be given to another applicant, first appeared in the Motor Vehicle Law in 1926 (Acts 1926, page 920). This same safeguard, but in somewhat stronger language was re-enacted in 1932 (Acts 1932, page 700). The same provision in still stronger language was re-enacted by the General Assembly of 1936 (Acts 1936, page 230). All of which evidences a clear intention on the part of the General Assembly to make certain that an existing carrier must be given the opportunity to remedy any inadequacy of sei:vice before such rights are given to his adversary, and to make this assurance doubly sure by making each re-enactment in language stronger than the previous enactmoot." This being the case, we are of the opinion that the views exprei:ssed in the Towns Case are entitled to equal, 1f not greater, weight today than was the case when the doctrine contained therein was first enunciated. Reynolds. TrQ,nsportation Company vs. Public Senice Com mission (Supra), a West Virginia decision which .construes a West Virginia statute patterned after Chapter 359 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1932, which. act was the im- Vuglnia Stage Lines,· Inc.,. v. Commonwealth. 'll mediate predecessor of the Virginia Motor· Carrier page 112 } Acts of 1936:, was from a factual standpoint strikingly similar to the c-ase presented here. In that case an :appli ~ation on the part of Meyer· Transit Company to operate over a portion of the route of Reynolds Transportation Company was involved., while here Stage Lines proposes to operate over a portion -of the route of Greyhound4 In disposing of that case the court said: "It i's said that Meyer performs a service which Reynolds can not perform, for the reason that its lines stop at Parsons, and it ,can neither transport persons beyond Parsons and to the east, or go beyond Paxsons and pick up passengers for transport to Elkins -0r other points west of Parsons. This, of course, is true, but if that be an argument for the proposition that the Meyer service :should be extended into Elkins, why, on the other hand, ehould not Reynolds be permitted to extend its operations to Thomas or points beyond. True, Reynolds has not applied for this right, but if we grant the same character of right to Meyer, how could we :refuse it as to Reynolds should it hereafter apply therefor? Thus would be laid the foundation for continued raid by one transpor tation company upon the territory of another, and.we do not think the public service will be promoted by such policy." The court then proceeded to deny Meyer Transit Company the rights applied for. In view of the language of the court decisions hereinbefore quoted and it appearing that the Legislature and our Court of 'Appeals have used the term «tenitory" interchangeably with the term "route", when such was deemed necessary and advisable to foster the policy of the Commonwealth. to protect existing ·carriers, as aforesaid, we are of the opinion that Greyhound ;should be afforded the opportunity to .render the service . ound to be necessary. Inasmuch as Greyhound has heretofore declared its willingness· to perfor.nJ. this service and has made application for a certificate fa furtherance of its declaration, we therefore deny the application -of Stage Lines and that of Greyhound will be granted upon its maturity. · Apperson, Commissioner, concurs. page 113} At Richmond, October 10, 1946 Case No. 8229 Commonwealth of Virginia At the relation of Virginia Stage Lines, Incorporated It having been stipulated and agreed between counsel repre :senting the parties in interest that none of the exhibits filed in this 72 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia proceeding shall be copied and that of said exhibits only exhibf ts No. 2 and No" 5 shall be cerlified and forwarded to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals of V-J.l'ginia to be considered on the hearing of appeal in this case,. IT IS ORDERED that the said exhibits No. 2 and No. 5 be certified to the Supreme Court of Appeals with the transcript of the record in this proceeding for use by said Court- in the appeal of this case ~nd after said appeal is heard the said exhibits No. 2 and. No. 5 shall be returned to the Clerk of this Com.mission; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stipulation between counsel representing Virginia Stage· Lines, Incorporated, and Atl~ntic Greyhound Corporation, dated July 13,. ~946, be and the same is hereby filed and made a. part of the record in this pro ceeding and a copy of said stipulation shall be incorporated in the transcript of the record of this proceeding. page 114 r CERTIFICATE. Pursuant to an order entered herein on the 10th day of October 1946, the origina~ exhibits listed therein, all of which are in the custody of the State Corporation Commission, are hereby cer tified to the Supreme Court of Appeals, and the said Court is respectfully requested to return the same to this Commission upon the final determination of this proceeding. It is hereby certified to the Supreme Court of Appeals that the foregoing transcript of the record of this proceeding,, when read in connection with the original exhibits hereinabove mentioned, contains and sets out all the facts and evidence upon which the action of the Commission in this proceeding was based and which are essential to a proper decision of the appeal to be taken from such action, and is also a true transcript of the proceeding and. orders of the Commission of said proceeding. Witness the signature of L. McCarthy Downs,. Chairman of the State Corporation. Commission, under its seal,. attested by its First Assistant Clerk, this 10th day of October, 1946,. and in the J71st year of the Commonwealth. L. McCARTHY DOWNS, Chairman. Attest: W. HUMEY DOVELL, Seal First Assistant Clerk of the Commission. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., v. Commonwealth. 73 I, W. Hurney Dovell, First Assistant Clerk, State Corporation Commission, do hereby certify that proper notice was given of .the intention to apply for transcript of the record in this case as the basis for appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, · pursuant to the provisions. of Section 6339, Code of Virginia, 1919. · W. HUMEY DOVELL, First Assistant Clerk of the Commission,~ A Copy-Teste: M. B. WATTS, C. C. INDEX TO RECORD Page Petition for Appeal ...... ~...... 1 Sketch Showing Routes . ~ ...... 8 Record ...... 9 Application of Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., for Certificate. . 9 .Exhibit B-Class ''A'' Time Schedule ...... 12 ·Order, September 8, 1945,-Fixing Date for Hearing, &c •• 17 Grounds of Objection of Atlantic Greyhound Corporation. 17 Stipulation as to Facts and Record...... 21 Hearing, October 3, 1945 ...... 24 S. A. Jessup ...... 32 R. A. Trice ...... 48 B. M. Amole ...... 52 Order, June 12, 1946,-Appealed from ...... 63 Opinion by Downs, Chairman ...... 63 Order, October 10, 1946 ...... • ...... 71 Certificate of Chairman ...... 72 Cerk 's Certificate ...... 73