[219]. Ibid., 489, Feb. 2, 1895. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Northern Pacific, Great Northern, Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, and other railroads.
[220]. 10 I. C. C. Decis. 452, Jan. 7, 1905.
[221]. Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2432, 2433.
[222]. 11 I. C. C. Decis. 104.
[223]. 10 ibid., 428, Jan. 1905.
[224]. Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 3426, 3427. S. H. Cowan, attorney of Cattle Growers’ Interstate Committee; Chicago Board of Trade v. C. & A. R. R., 4 I. C. C. Decis. 158.
[225]. 10 I. C. C. Decis. 428. Chicago Live-Stock Exchange v. Chicago and Great Western. See also I. C. C. Rep. 1905, pp. 42, 63.
[226]. The United States Circuit Court has refused to enforce the order of the Commission on the ground that the Chicago Great Western reduced the rate for competitive reasons to get its share of the tariff. The Commission justly says: “If the decision of the Circuit Court in this case is sound any carrier is justified in making the widest discriminations in rates as between competing commodities, regardless of the effect upon non-favored industries, by simply asserting the existence of general competition and the desire to increase the traffic in particular commodities over its line.”
I. C. C. Rep. December, 1905, p. 64. It is to be hoped that the case will go up on appeal and a reversal of the Circuit decision be obtained.
[227]. 10 I. C. C. Decis. 590, Feb. 11, 1905; Rep. 1905, p. 31.