FOOTNOTES:
[798] On state commissions and the conflict with the Federal government, consult as follows:
1900. Hendrick, F., Railway Control by Commissions.
1900. McLean, S. J., Economic Journal, pp. 22-42.
1903. Meyer, B. H., Railway Legislation in the United States.
1903. Railways in the United States in 1902, part II. United States Interstate Commerce Commission.
1905. Dixon, F. H. Political Science Quarterly, XX, pp. 612-624.
1908. Huebner, G. G. Annals Amer. Acad. Pol Sci., pp. 138-155.
In a List of References on Railways, published by the Congressional Library, 1907, special articles on experience by states, such as Dixon on Nebraska, Meyer on Wisconsin, Million on Missouri, etc., will be found under the names of states. Even more comprehensive is the collective catalogue prepared by the Bureau of Railway Economics, Chicago, 1912.
[799] Financial regulation will be discussed in vol. II.
[800] P. [452], supra. Also chaps. XXIII et seq. in our Railway Problems.
[801] Vol II, in connection with capitalization and stock-watering.
[802] On the new Pennsylvania commission consult the Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1912.
[803] "The Wisconsin Idea," by Charles McCarthy, described by Van Hise in "Concentration and Control," 1912, p. 236.
[804] Huebner, op. cit., p. 147 has carefully tabulated all these laws.
[805] The effect of Missouri distance tariffs upon rates over a large part of the Middle West is best instanced in the Missouri-Mississippi rate scheme. Cf. p. [128], supra, and especially chap. XX in our Railway Problems, rev. ed. Cf. also local and through tariffs at p. [394], supra; the Wabash decision, p. [451], supra; and the two-cent fare laws, p. [429], supra.
[808] Cf. p. [394], supra, the Texarkana, I. C. C. case, May, 1900; and 11 Idem, 180, for Arkansas. Also 13 Idem, 48; and 18 Idem, 415. For later cases, 22 Idem, 110; and 23 Idem, 404 and 688.
[810] 207 U. S., 328.
[812] Economic Bulletin, of the Amer. Econ. Ass., I; Annual Rep. I. C. C., 1907, p. 93; and Idem, 1908, pp. 71 and 76.
[813] 209 U. S., 123, 205.
[814] The similar controversy in Minnesota regarding iron ore shipments seems to have been settled by voluntary abandonment of the claim to regulate by the state on Nov. 20, 1911. Cf. Minn. R. R. Com., Rep.
[815] Decision reprinted in our Railway Problems, rev. ed., chap. XXV. See also volume II.
[816] Railroad Commission of Louisiana, etc.; 23 I.C.C. Rep., 31.
[818] Ibid., p. 34. A number of other cases are cited and compared by Hammond, Rate Theories, etc., 1911, p. 82 et seq.
[819] The most careful examination of this subject is in H. G. Moulton's Waterways Versus Railways, 1912.
[821] Cf. the Final Report of the U. S. Industrial Commission, 1901, vol. XIX.
[822] Cf. the data published by the Bureau of Railway Economics, in Bulletin 21, 1911, on the relative cost of transportation upon the Erie Canal.
[823] Cf. p. [386], supra, on competition by river in the South.
[824] Cf. Moulton, op. cit.
[825] Cf. pp. [386], [590] and [612], supra. Data will be found in the U. S. Industrial Commission Report, 1900-1901, and the Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905.
[826] The so-called Flour City case, recently decided in 1912 by the I. C. C. (not yet reported), held it to be the duty of these railroads to provide facilities for the handling of flour on through shipments of this sort.
[827] An excellent review of the situation in Railway Age Gazette, LIII, pp. 199 and 249.
[828] Cf. pp. [397] and [611], supra.