[792] Of significance on this point is Commissioner Lane's dissent in the Lemon rate case. P. [592], supra.
[793] For details, Cf. Hammond, Rate Theories of the Interstate Commerce Commission (1911) and J. Strombeck, Freight Classification (1912). Also p. [468], supra.
[794] Atlantic Monthly, September and October, 1905. On shortcomings of the later amendments of the law, cf. F. H. Dixon, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. XXIII, 1910, p. 630.
[795] Railway Age Gazette, editorial, January 12, 1912, p. 41; and S. O. Dunn, The American Transportation Question, 1912.
[796] Cf. the Fort Worth case decided June 6, 1912; also the Eau Claire case, 5 I. C. C. Rep., 264. The latest case in which the Commission held that it had power to suspend a proposed reduction in rates arose from just such a condition of affairs, 22 I. C. C. Rep., 160.
[797] I am indebted to Professor Smalley of Ann Arbor, certainly the best authority among economists, for many citations on this point; as well as to Professor F. H. Dixon for suggestions. Cf. also 21 I. C. C. Rep., 415; Annual Report I. C. C., 1911, p. 34; and the Commerce Court opinion under discussion. Commissioner Harlan in his dissent in the Shreveport case asserts a clearer right over minimum than over maximum rates as against state authority. 23 I. C. C. Rep., 54.
CHAPTER XX
THE CONFLICT OF FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY; OPEN QUESTIONS
History of state railroad commissions, [627].—The legislative unrest since 1900, [628].—New commissions and special laws, [629].—The situation critical, [630].—Particular conflicts illustrated, [631].—The clash in 1907, [632].—Missouri experience, [633].—The Minnesota case, [634].—The Governors join issue, [634].—The Shreveport case, [635].