which would have accrued at a rate of $5.80, plus a charge of $2.70 for diversion at Clinton. Defendants are authorized to waive collection of the outstanding undercharges. The complaint will be dismissed. No. 21727 FEDERAL FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY ET AL. Submitted June 7, 1929. Decided September 16, 1929 Rates charged on numerous carloads of grapes shipped in refrigerator cars from specified points in California to Modesto and San Jose, Calif., there stored in transit and reshipped to eastern destinations, found not unreasonable. Complaint dismissed. F. H. Smith for complainant. No appearance for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEWIS, WOODLOCK, AND FARRELL BY DIVISION 5: This case was presented under the shortened procedure. No exceptions were filed to the report proposed by the examiner. Complainant, a corporation shipping fruit at Fresno, Calif., alleges, by complaint filed November 20, 1928, that the rates charged on 19 carloads of grapes shipped in refrigerator cars between September 23 and October 29, 1926, both inclusive, from Strathmore, Fayette, Clotho, and Redbanks, Calif., to Modesto and San Jose, Calif., there stored in transit and reshipped to eastern destinations, were unreasonable. Reparation only is sought. A special-docket application filed by defendants on March 27, 1928, was denied on September 29, 1928. Rates will be stated in amounts per 100 pounds. In a letter received from defendants under date of December 29, 1928, they advised that they did not intend to contest the complaint or file a formal answer thereto. The five carloads which originated on the Southern Pacific moved direct to Modesto and San Jose. The remaining 14 shipments received on the Visalia Electric Railroad were turned over to the Southern Pacific at Exeter, Calif., for movement to the storage points. At the time of movement storage privilege was accorded shipments of grapes from origin points on the Southern Pacific, but was not applicable from points on the Visalia Electric. The tariff, however, specifically provided that this service would not apply on the movement of grapes in refrigerator cars. It appears that the restriction was deemed necessary to prevent a shortage of refrigerator equipment for the handling of perishables destined to eastern transcontinental points. Charges were collected for the movements into Modesto and San Jose at the applicable class C rates set forth below. These rates applied in connection with intrastate and interstate traffic. On the outbound shipments, for which separate bills of lading were issued, the rate of $1.73, applicable from Modesto and San Jose, was assessed. Subject to the restrictions referred to above, this rate also applied from the points of origin named to ultimate destinations. Complainant seeks reparation to the basis of the through rate of $1.73, plus transit and out-of-line charges. It was to this basis that defendant sought authority to award reparation on the special docket. Complainant is in effect seeking the retroactive application of a transit service. Effective November 5, 1926, the tariff was amended by removing the restriction as to refrigerator cars, and on February 21, 1927, the transit privilege was extended to points on the Visalia Electric. We have repeatedly declined to sanction the retroactive application of a transit service in the absence of unjust discrimination or undue prejudice and damage thereunder. Dejean v. Director General, 68 I. C. C. 611. In view of the finding hereinafter made it is unnecessary to determine whether the movements to Modesto and San Jose were separate intrastate transactions. We find that the rates assailed were not unreasonable. The complaint will be dismissed. 157 I. C. C. No. 21260 F. M. HAWLEY ET AL. v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. Submitted June 17, 1929. Decided September 18, 1929 Damage not being proved, complaint seeking reparation because of alleged unreasonable charges on common salt, in carloads, from Hutchinson, Lyons, Emporia, and Kanopolis, Kans., to specified points in Oklahoma, dismissed. F. M. Hawley for complainants. H. C. Barron for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, TAYLOR, AND PORTER BY DIVISION 3: No exceptions were filed to the report proposed by the examiner. By complaint filed July 14, 1928, on behalf of certain merchants and manufacturers at Drumright, Tuskahoma, Shawnee, Pryor, Holdenville, Claremore, Vinita, Quinton, and Yale, Okla., it is alleged that unreasonable charges were collected on 18 carloads of commɔn salt, in packages, in blocks, or in bulk, shipped between March 27, 1926, and June 21, 1927, from Hutchinson, Lyons, Emporia, and Kanopolis, Kans., to complainants at the Oklahoma points named. Reparation only is sought. Informal complaints covering the shipments, filed between December 27, 1927, and January 16, 1928, failed of adjustment, and complainants were so notified on or after February 14, 1928. Complainants rely solely upon Salt Between Western and Southwestern Points, 120 I. C. C. 91, wherein we found the rates on common salt, in carloads, from and to the points considered among others, unreasonable on and after May 23, 1925, prescribed reasonable rates and awarded reparation. The rates so prescribed, to the basis of which reparation is sought, became effective July 10, 1927. Both the informal and formal complaints were signed only by F. M. Hawley, a traffic investigator whose authority to act for complainants is not shown. No competent evidence was offered that complainants made the shipments as alleged or that they paid or bore the charges thereon. Damage to complainants not being proved, an award of reparation can not be made. The complaint will be dismissed. INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION DOCKET No. 3305 COMBINATION RULE ON GRANITE, MARBLE, OR STONE FROM SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY STATIONS TO INTERMEDIATE POINTS Submitted July 22, 1929. Decided September 19, 1929 Proposed restriction of the application of the combination rule in constructing combination rates or granite, marble, or stone from certain shipping points in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia to various interstate destinations, including points in western trunk-line territory and the Southwest, found not justified. Suspended schedules ordered canceled and proceeding discontinued. Charles P. Reynolds for respondent. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, TAYLOR, AND PORTER BY DIVISION 3: By schedules filed to become effective on June 3, 1929, respondent, Seaboard Air Line Railway, proposed certain restrictions with respect to the application of the rule for constructing combination rates on granite, marble, or stone, in carloads, from certain producing points in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia to destinations in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and other States over interstate routes. Upon protest of the National Granite Commission, an organization representing producers and dealers of granite, operation of the schedules was suspended until January 3, 1930. Rates will be stated in amounts per ton of 2,000 pounds. The record deals with rates on rough-quarried granite from the Elberton, Ga., producing district to certain destinations in western trunk-line territory and the Southwest to which no joint rates are in effect. Under the present tariffs the factors of combination rates from Elberton to these destinations published by respondent are made subject to the combination rule. That rule was adopted by respondent following the issuance in 1918 of General Order No. 28 of the Director General of Railroads, which authorized flat increases in the existing rates on certain commodities, including granite, marble, or stone. Its purpose was to prevent double increases in the through rates. As applied to shipments of rough-quarried granite it con templates the deduction of 50 cents from each commodity component of a combination rate and the addition of 50 cents to the sum of the components so reduced. The proposed schedules provide in effect that no deduction will be made unless at least two of the factors, applicable for contiguous portions of the through movement, used in constructing a combination rate are made subject to the combination rule by specific tariff provision and that where two or more of the factors are thus made subject to the combination rule and another factor is not specifically made subject to the rule deductions will be made only from the factors made subject to the combination rule by specific tariff provision. The effect of the proposed schedules would be to increase some of the present rates by 50 cents and to increase others by $1. Frequently we have held that where two or more commodity factors are used in constructing a through combination rate and one of such factors is made subject to the combination rule by specific tariff provision that rule must be applied to all the commodity factors in constructing the through rate. Respondent states that the purpose of the proposed schedules is to amend its present tariffs so that it will not be called upon to bear the full amount of the deductions under the combination rule in cases where the tariffs of its connections make no reference to that rule. It contends that the burden of the combination rule shrinkage in such instances should not fall wholly upon it. With this we are inclined to agree, but it does not necessarily follow that the proposed restriction of the application of the combination rule is the proper method of relieving respondent of this burden. Schedules filed by the carriers, including respondent, since the general southwestern revision, proposing among other things, to cancel the joint commodity rates on granite and other stone from points in the Southeast to points in the Southwest and MissouriKansas territory and to restrict application of the commodity rates on granite and other stone from producing points in the Southeast, including Elberton, to the Mississippi River crossings so as not to apply on shipments destined to points west of the river were suspended and are now under consideration in Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 3130. The commodity rates on granite from Elberton to the river crossings are at present used in constructing combination rates on that commodity from Elberton to destinations in the Southwest and Missouri-Kansas territory to which no joint rates are in effect. Protestant points out that the order entered in Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 3130 provides that except as provided therein no change shall be made in the rates sought to be altered or changed by the respondents in that proceeding. The |