[353]. Sen. Com. 1905, p. 1521. The Texas Railway Commission says: “It is plain that, if a railway company is permitted to become interested in any kind of business competitive with business in the carrying on of which for others it is engaged, the business in which it is interested can be made to prosper at the expense of the business in which it has no interest. The temptation to unfair discrimination in such a case is so powerful that it ought to be removed.” (Report, 1896, p. 29.)
[354]. Sen. Com. 1905, p. 17.
[355]. I. C. C. Rep. 1898, p. 6.
[356]. I. C. C. Rep. 1898, p. 8.
[357]. On pages 65 and 66 of the last Report, Dec. 1905, the Commission discusses a decision of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, in June last, to the effect that a subpœna duces tecum, commanding the secretary and treasurer of a corporation supposed to have violated the law to testify before the grand jury, and bring numerous agreements, letters, telegrams, etc.,—practically all the correspondence and documents of the company originating since the date of its origin,—to enable the district attorney to ascertain whether evidence of the alleged breach of law exists, constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure of papers prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
[358]. Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2899–2901, 2911.
[359]. Sen. Com. 1905, p. 829.
[360]. I. C. C. Beef Hearing, Dec. 1901, pp. 100, 101.
[361]. I. C. C. Beef Hearing, Dec. 1901, pp. 114–115.
[362]. Ibid., p. 126.