[210]. Some strong statements about this case may be found in the Philadelphia North American August 12, August 20, and other dates during August, 1903.
[211]. Sen. Com. 1905, p. 2434. See 10 I. C. C. 1905, p. 505.
[212]. This trick was resorted to by the oily people many years ago, but the railroads, realizing its potency in eluding the rebate prohibitions, have lately extended its sphere of usefulness and it is becoming quite frequent. See Sen. Com. 1905, p. 2123.
[213]. Ind. Com. iv, 544. The name “midnight tariff” by which this scheme is known probably fits the case, but “flying tariff” is perhaps still more appropriate.
[214]. Outlook, July 1, 1905, p. 579.
[215]. Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2911, 2912, Commissioner Prouty; 2123, President Stickney. See also p. 3231, and 10 I. C. C. Decis. 317.
[216]. Mr. Moffat was asked if he thought the allowances ought to be made. He said: “I think that it ought to be made to the big shippers. I think the man who ships 100,000 bushels a month ought to get a little better deal than the man who ships only 1,000 bushels a year.”
Commissioner Cockrell replied: “There is where I think you are entirely wrong. No government could live under such a condition. The rich would soon absorb everything and the small man would be wiped out of existence. The whole business we are on now started from a railroad giving a man a rebate. The minute the railroad does a thing like that it opens the way to a swindling petty graft and bigger grafting and crooked work. It is wrong, all wrong. It is so wrong that nobody knows what to call it. Down in Louisville they call it a ‘swag.’ Here you call it an ‘allowance.’ It is all wrong.”
[217]. 10 I. C. C. Decis. 274, June 4, 1904.
[218]. Ibid., 255, June 4, 1904. The practice was held unjust.