[105]. Ibid., pp. 101, 102.
[106]. Mr. Cost, traffic manager of the Big Four, I. C. C. Beef Hearing, Dec. 1901, p. 105.
[107]. I. C. C. Beef Hearing, Dec. 1901, p. 114.
[108]. Ibid., pp. 113, 119.
[109]. I. C. C. Beef Hearing, Dec. 1901, pp. 85, 86.
[110]. I. C. C. Beef Hearing, Dec. 1901, p. 107.
[111]. I. C. C. Hearing in the dressed-meat cases, Chicago, Jan. 7, 1902, pp. 152–154.
[112]. Evidence in the I. C. C. Hearing in the dressed-meat cases, Chicago, Jan. 5, 1902, pp. 145, 148, 149.
[113]. Report, Industrial Commission, vol. iv, pp. 69, 493.
[114]. Import Rate Case. Texas and Pacific v. I. C. C., 162 U. S. 197, March, 1896. The complaint was brought in December, 1889, by the New York Board of Trade against the Pennsylvania Railroad and others. The New York Central, B. & O., B. & M., Ill. Central, Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Northern Pacific, Texas & Pacific, etc., 33 railroads in all, were joined as defendants. The Commission held (Jan., 1891) that import traffic is entitled to no preference. 3 I. C. C. Decis. 417. (See also 4 I. C. C. 447.) The Circuit Court sustained the Commission in Oct., 1892 (52 Fed. Rep. 187), and the Court of Appeals in Oct., 1893 (57 Fed. Rep. 948), but the Texas & Pacific carried the case to the U. S. Supreme Court and the majority of the Court, reversing the Commission and the Circuit Court, interpreted the Commerce Act of Congress in such a way as to render substantially inoperative the main clauses relating to discrimination and the long haul, and practically nullify another Act of Congress so far as it imposes duties on imports for the purpose of protecting home industries. The Court accomplished this by focussing its attention on the phrase relating to dissimilar conditions, instead of aiming to enforce the act according to its clear purpose and intent. Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Harlan and Brown dissented, holding that the Interstate Act requires railways to make the same charge for the same service, whether the goods carried are domestic or foreign.