DOOR FRAMES.
Rates on.

DOORS.

Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. 8. & A. B. Oo. 489.

Freight classification of. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth 8. 8. & A. R
Co. 489.

Rates on. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. 8. & A. R. Co. 489.

DOORS, SCREEN.

Rates on.

Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth S. 8. & A. R. Co. 489.

DRAWBACKS. See REBATES.

DRESSED MEATS.

Rates on. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 428.
EARTHENWARE.

Rates on. Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga ▼. Southern R. Co.
117, 118.

ELEVATORS.

As to Rebates in General, see REBATES.

1. A railroad company may perform elevator or transfer service for
itself, or, if it sees fit, hire it done by others, and in so doing is not le-
gally at fault or guilty of wrongdoing because those employed by the car-
rier to transfer the grain are also shippers of grain, and are thereby inci-
dentally aided in their business of buying and shipping grain. Matter of
Allowances to Elevators, 309.

2. A carrier cannot complain because of a reasonable allowance made
by a rival carrier for elevator or transfer service. Id.

3. One and one-fourth cents per 100 lbs. of grain, paid by a carrier for
elevator or transfer service, is not unreasonable. Id.

EMBARGO.

The complainant was not unjustly discriminated against by failure to
furnish him with cars for the shipment of grain, while supplying a com-
petitor doing business in the same town with cars, where it appeared that
complainant desired to ship grain mainly to eastern points, concerning the
transportation of which an embargo had been established by eastern lines,
while his competitor in that business shipped largely by defendant's line to
local points for which complainant had no shipment. Parks v. Cincinnati
& M. Valley R. Co. 47.

ESTOPPEL. See JUDGMENT.

EVIDENCE.

1. The value of the entire property of a road can shed but little, if any,

light upon the question whether the rate on one among thousands of articles
of traffic yields its proper proportion of a fair return upon that value;
and, moreover, the voluminous and conflicting testimony in this case on that
subject does not enable the Commission to determine the value of defendants'
respective properties. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 505.
2. Merely putting in evidence defendant's rule of car apportionment is
insufficient to show discrimination against the complainant; the actual
effect of the rule, during the time covered by the complaint is necessary
to a determination of the question of unfairness in the distribution of
cars. Richmond Elevator Co. v. Pere Marquette R. Co. 629.

3. Every shipper is legally entitled to fair opportunity and treatment in
the use of the carrier's utilities, and any discrimination which in a sub-
stantial degree deprives shippers of such use must be considered unjust, un-
less forced by justifying conditions. In such a case the burden of proof is
upon the complainant for the purpose of showing discrimination, and then
upon the carrier to show that the discrimination was justified. Id.

1. The right of complainant to ship coal was not barred by the fact
that he was a druggist by occupation, or that he loaded coal cars from
wagons, for a large part of the commerce of the country is handled in that
way; and when he tendered freight for transportation he was entitled to
the same facilities furnished to other shippers in like conditions. Thomp-
son v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 640.

2. While the Act to regulate commerce contains no provision which, ex-
pressly or by proper implication, gives this Commission jurisdiction in
cases merely showing delay or negligence in the receipt, forwarding, or de-
livery of property offered for transportation, including the furnishing of
cars, the regulating statute does prohibit any unjust discrimination or
wrongful prejudice in the provision of cars or other transportation facili-
ties, as well as in the fixing and application of transportation charges.
Richmond Elevator Co. v. Pere Marquette R. Co. 629.

3. No such undue preference or unjust discrimination as would war-
rant an order of relief or for reparation is shown under complainant's
claim that he was subjected to an unreasonable disadvantage by refusing
him a private switch and providing his competitor in the coal business
with one, thereby compelling him to unload coal at an inconvenient point
near the outskirts of the town, where it appeared that complainant really
desired to use a passing siding of defendant for the purpose of unloading
his coal. Parks v. Cincinnati & M. Valley R. Co. 47.

FENCE POSTS.

Freight classification of. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. 8. & A. R.
Co. 489.

FENCING.

Rates on. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 519.

FERTILIZER.

Cowpeas not to be classified with, in the adjustment of freight rates.
Swaffield v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 281.

Table showing car capacity and actual loading capacity when loaded with
fertilizer as compared with other commodities. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v.
Illinois C. R. Co. 533; Tift v. Southern R. Co. 577.

FLOORING.

Rates on. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 519.

FLOUR.

Rates on.

Wichita v. Missouri P. R. Co. 35; Aberdeen Group Com-

mercial Asso. v. Mobile & O. R. Co. 289.

Table showing comparison of total annual tonnage of flour with that of
other commodities. Tift v. Southern R. Co. 568.

FREIGHT DEPOT.

1. A railroad freight depot and a public storage warehouse are not used
for similar purposes, and the charge for storage in the railroad depot may
properly be made higher than the public warehouse charge, with the ob-
ject of compelling the expeditious removal of freight. Blackman v. South-
ern R. Co. 352.

2. The Southern Railway Company in applying to complainant's inter-
state traffic at Macon, Ga., the storage rates prescribed by the Georgia Rail-
road Commission, and the Columbia, Newberry, and Laurens Railroad Com-
pany, in applying to complainant's interstate traffic at Columbia, S. C.,
the storage rates prescribed by the South Carolina Railroad Commission,
did not violate the Act to Regulate Commerce, although such storage rates
were in excess of the usual public warehouse charges in Macon and Colum-
bia. Id.

3. The regulation providing for an earlier closing hour of the freight
depot at Cincinnati than that which has previously been in force, and
which is earlier than that in force at other points, does not, under the ex-
isting conditions and circumstances, impose upon the shippers of Cincin-
nati unreasonable or undue disadvantage in competing with shippers at
other points, but it may do so if continued indefinitely; and the dismissal
of the complaint is, therefore, without prejudice to further proceedings.
Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce and Merchants' Exchange v. Baltimore
& O. S. W. R. Co. 378.

4. The Commission is authorized by the Act to Regulate Commerce, after
investigation, to order carriers to cease and desist from subjecting any
particular person, locality, or description of traffic to undue or unreason-
able prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; and its juris-
diction extends to a case of alleged unlawful prejudice and disadvantage
to shippers of outbound package freight through enforcement by carriers of
a regulation providing for the earlier closing of depots used for the recep-
tion of such freight. Id.

5. Storage rates and regulations enforced by common carriers subject to

the Act to Regulate Commerce must be published at their stations and filed
with the Commission. Blackman v. Southern R. Co. 352.

FRESH MEATS.

Rates on.

FRUIT.

Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 428.

Rates on. Re Transportation of Fruit, 360.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PACKAGES MADE FROM WOOD.

Freight classification of. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. 8. & A. R.
Co. 489.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLES.

Table showing comparison of total annual tonnage of fruit and vegetables
with that of other commodities. Tift v. Southern R. Co. 568; Central
Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 534.

FURNITURE.

Table showing car capacity and actual loading capacity when loaded with
furniture as compared with other commodities. Central Yellow Pine Asso.
v. Illinois C. R. Co. 533; Tift v. Southern R. Co. 577.

GABLE ORNAMENTS.

Rates on.

GRAIN.

Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. 8. & A. R. Co. 489.

Table showing total annual freight tonnage of grain and other com-
modities. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 534; Tift v.
Southern R. Co. 568.

Rates on. Aberdeen Group Commercial Asso. v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
289; Cannon Falls Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Chicago, G. W. R. Co. 650.

GRILLE WORK.

Rates on.

HAY.

Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. S. & A. R. Co. 489.

Furnishing of Cars for Transportation of, see CARS.

Rates on. H. B. Pitts & Son v. Atchison, T. & 8. F. R. Co. 691.

Table showing comparison of total annual tonnage of hay with that of
other commodities. Tift v. Southern R. Co. 568.

HOGS.

Rates on. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 428.

HOLLOW WARE.

Rates on.

Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern R. Co. 118.

HOOPS.

Freight classification of. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. 8. & A. R.
Co. 489.

HORSES.

Rates on. Barrow v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. 333.

HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

Table showing total annual freight tonnage of household goods and other
commodities. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 534; Tift v.
Southern R. Co. 568.

HUBS.

Freight classification of. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. 8. & A. R.
Co. 489.

ICING. See REFRIGERATOR CARS.

IMMIGRANTS.

It is at least doubtful whether section five of the Act to regulate com-
merce, and which forbids the pooling of freights, applies to a practice where-
by the transportation of immigrants from Atlantic ports westward is
divided between the carriers in agreed proportions based upon the pro-
portion of the domestic passenger traffic done by each line, where such a
practice cannot be made effective in respect to any other class of passenger
business, and the immigrants are carried at domestic published rates, and
the arrangements adopted by the carriers in connection with the immigra-
tion authorities of the United States have efficiently promoted the protec-
tion and greatly improved the treatment and comfort of immigrants. Re
Transportation of Immigrants from New York, 13.

INJUNCTION.

The Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Company has systematically
and continuously violated the act of February 19, 1903 (the so-called "Elkins
law"), notwithstanding that it has, in a suit begun in the United States
Supreme Court at the instance and request of this Commission, been under
injunction since March 25, 1902, to observe in all respects its published
schedules of rates. Re Transportation of Coal & Mine Supplies, 473.

INTERIOR TRIMMINGS, WOOD.

Rates on. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. 8. & A. R. Co. 489.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

1. Where a proceeding as to the legality of a transaction was merely one
of inquiry, the Commission contented itself with expressing an opinion, and
did not make an order in the premises. Re Transportation of Salt from
Hutchinson, 1.

2. It is the province of the Commission to interfere and secure, if pos