organizations approved the schedules. After due consideration we declined to suspend the proposed schedules. Upon further hearing, the findings on page 241 of the former report are hereby amended to read as follows: The allegations of unreasonableness and undue prejudice have not been sustained. We find that the rates charged prior to January 1, 1927, were inapplicable, and that the applicable rates were 51 cents from Knoxville and 49.5 cents from Duff. We further find that the shipments were made as described; that complainant paid and bore the charges thereon; that it has been damaged in the amount of the difference between the charges paid and those which would have accrued at the rates found applicable where lower than the rates charged; and that it is entitled to reparation, with interest, from defendant, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Complainant should comply with Rule V of the Rules of Practice. In computing the amount of reparation outstanding undercharges should be adjusted. BRAINERD, Commissioner, dissenting: I feel obliged to dissent from the conclusions of the majority herein largely for the reasons stated by me in the separate expression accompanying the former report herein. 169 I. C. C. No. 22555 WILBANKS & PIERCE, INCORPORATED, v. CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. Submitted June 23, 1930. Decided November 6, 1930 1. Claim for reparation based on alleged inapplicability of the rate charged on a carload of dredging-machine parts from Middletown, Ohio, to Manatee, Fla., found barred by the statute. 2. Rate charged on a carload of dredging-machine parts from Middletown, Ohio, to Bradenton, Fla., found inapplicable. Reparation awarded. Arthur Attwood for complainant. Frank W. Gwathmey for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS MCMANAMY, BRAINERD, AND LEE BY DIVISION 3: This case was presented under the shortened procedure. Exceptions were filed by defendants to the report proposed by the examiner. Complainant, a corporation engaged in the dredging business, alleges by complaint filed July 24, 1929, that the rates charged on two carloads of dredging-machine parts shipped on January 7, and March 18, 1926, from Middletown, Ohio, to Bradenton and Manatee, Fla., were inapplicable. Reparation only is sought. The shipment to Bradenton was delivered or tendered for delivery on January 26, 1926. The shipment to Manatee was delivered or tendered for delivery April 7, 1926. Two informal complaints, each covering one of the shipments and each containing the allegation of inapplicability, were filed on behalf of complainant. The informal complaint covering the shipment to Bradenton was filed January 7, 1929, and closed March 8, 1929. The other informal complaint was filed October 26, 1928, and closed December 22, 1928. The claim for reparation in so far as the shipment to Manatee is concerned is barred by the statute. Charges will be stated in amounts per 100 pounds. The shipment to Bradenton consisted of 75 sections of dredge pipe and 6 dredge-pipe elbows; it weighed 25,200 pounds and apparently moved as routed over the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis, the Louisville & Nashville, the Georgia Southern & Florida, and the Seaboard Air Line from origin to destination. Charges were collected at a combination rate of $1.62, composed of the fifth-class rate of 14 cents to the Ohio River, the fifth-class rate of 81.5 cents to Jacksonville, Fla., and the fifth-class rate of 66.5 cents beyond. In the exceptions to southern classification a class N rate was provided on "dredging machinery, and parts thereof, c. l.” Complainant seeks reparation to the basis of a combination rate of $1.21, composed of the factors charged north of Jacksonville, plus the class N rate of 25.5 cents beyond. The question for determination is whether or not the considered commodity is included under the designation of "dredging machinery and parts thereof." Complainant states that the considered shipment— consists of discharge pipe for a hydraulic suction dredge. It is manufactured expressly for that purpose, having handles and hooks welded on to it and nozzles of heavier material welded on the ends. It is also reinforced with metal bands to prevent it splitting apart. It is beyond a doubt a highly specialized and indispensable part of dredge equipment. This statement appears in exhibits of record, referred to and made a part of complainant's memorandum of facts, consisting of letters from complainant to the traffic organization which filed the informal complaint. No objection to the receipt and consideration of these letters was made prior to the service of the proposed report. By their exceptions defendants objected, for the first time, to the consideration of these letters on the grounds that such evidence was hearsay and that it was not properly verified as required by our Rules of Practice. These objections, if proper at any time, were made too late. We do not recognize the right of a party to object to the consideration of evidence of this kind after service of a proposed report. It should be noted that defendants do not deny the truth of the statement above quoted. Funk & Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary defines a machine as "Any combination of inanimate mechanism for utilizing or applying power." It defines machinery as "The parts of a machine or engine, or a number of machines and kindred appliances, taken collectively." Whether or not the considered commodity is a part of a machine depends upon whether it is one of the combinations necessary in utilizing or applying power. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that the suction dredge as its name implies, relies on suction to lift the material to the surface. The device consists essentially of an air-tight suction pipe, one end of which is lowered down to the bed of the sea or river and the other connected with a centrifugal pump. The water and solids are discharged through the discharge pipe which, according to the uncontradicted evidence, is manufactured especially for that purpose and can be used for no other purpose. The operation is not complete until the water and solids have been discharged. It is clear that this pipe is one of the combinations necessary in utilizing or applying power. It is therefore a part of the dredge machine. The governing classification provides a fifth-class rating on machine and machinery parts, n. o. i. b. n., c. l., minimum 24,000 pounds, subject to rule 34. The car used was 40 feet 6 inches in length. Rule 34 provides a minimum of 26,880 pounds for a car of this size. The class N rate south of Jacksonville takes the same minimum. We find that the claim for reparation based on the inapplicability of the rate charged on the shipment to Manatee is barred by the statute; that the shipment to Bradenton consisted of parts of a dredging machine; that the rate assailed was inapplicable; that the applicable rate was a combination rate, composed of the factors charged north of Jacksonville plus a factor of 25.5 cents beyond; that complainant received the shipment as described and paid and bore the charges thereon and was damaged thereby in the amount of the difference between the charges paid and those that would have accrued at the rate herein found applicable, and is entitled to reparation in the amount of $82.94 with interest. An order awarding reparation will be entered. BRAINERD, Commissioner, dissenting: The 75 sections of pipe shipped with a dredging machine can not, in my opinion, be held to be portions or parts of such a machine, although the use of some such pipe may be necessary equipment in its usual operations. 169 I. C. C. No. 22395 PERCY N. SWEETSER ET AL. v. DELAWARE & HUDSON COMPANY ET AL. Submitted June 24, 1930. Decided November 7, 1930 Rate on anthracite coal, in carloads, from producing points in Pennsylvania to Henry J. O'Brien and Henry J. Roper for complainants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 2, COMMISSIONERS MCMANAMY, BRAINERD, AND LEE BY DIVISION 2: Com Exceptions were filed by complainants to the report proposed by the examiner. Complainants, Percy N. Sweetser, an individual, and Wendell, Bancroft & Company, a partnership composed of Charles W. Lee and Wendell B. Newel, buy and sell coal at Reading, Mass. By complaint filed June 12, 1929, they allege that the applicable rate of $4.91 charged on anthracite coal, in carloads, shipped between June 10, 1926, and June 10, 1929, from producing points in Pennsylvania on the Delaware & Hudson to Reading was and is unreasonable and unduly prejudicial; also that the rate to Reading was and is in violation of the long-and-short haul provision of section 4 of the interstate commerce act in that it exceeded and exceeds the rate of $4.54 to more distant destinations. Informal complaint filed March 8, 1929, closed May 16, 1929, covered shipments made between March 1, 1926, and March 1, 1929. The claim in respect of shipments which were delivered prior to March 9, 1927, is barred. Lawful rates for the future and reparation are sought. Rates herein are stated in amounts per ton of 2,240 pounds. The defendants were authorized by fourth-section order No. 9320, dated May 15, 1926, to continue rates on anthracite coal, in carloads, without observing the long-and-short-haul provision of the fourth section, from mines in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania to Boston and points within the Boston switching district, as defined in Boston Wool Trade Asso. v. Director General, 69 I. C. C. 282. Upon |