"Before long the owner of the rival boat came to Mr. Huntington and asked him what he was prepared to do about it. Mr. Huntington replied that he would buy his boat for $10,000—I think the sum was. 'But, Mr. Huntington, the boat cost me $20,000, and she is worth it.' 'Very likely, but I am only going to give you $10,000.' So the fight went on for a while longer. When the spring came Mr. Huntington was on the point of returning to New York. He sent word to his rival that he was leaving California the following week, and that if the matter was not settled before he left, his 50-cent boat would continue to run till his return the following winter. Whereupon his competitor at once threw up the sponge and then sold his boat for $10,000. 'Since then,' concluded Mr. Huntington, 'there has been no competition with the Southern Pacific on the Sacramento river.'"
[700] Opinion No. 44, 1911, is the first Commerce Court case to interpret this jurisdiction. Cf., also, p. [587], supra.
[701] 191 Fed. Rep., 37, first interprets this clause. P. [587], infra.
[702] Quarterly Journal of Economics, XXVI, 1912, p. 444.
[704] Report of the Railroad Securities Commission, Nov. 1, 1911.
[706] These will be fully described in our second volume in connection with stock-watering, valuation and allied financial problems.
[707] Volume II, in the chapter on Valuation.