[143] C., N. O. & T. P. case, testimony, vol. II, pp. 332-333.
[144] Cf. The Freight Rate Primer, bearing no authors or publishers name, but largely compiled from addresses by President W. C. Brown of the New York Central & Hudson River. Similar arguments and computations occur in the testimony before the Senate (Elkins) Committee of 1905, pp. 1162 and 2276.
[145] Now who will say that it is unreasonable to charge 7½ cts. to carry a suit of clothes from Chicago to New York.... Railways could charge three or four times the cost of transportation for a pair of drawers and the rates would still be reasonable.... But all the first-class rates are of that nature.—Albert Fink, testimony, C., N. O. & T. P. case, p. 290.
[146] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, p. 1162.
[147] In re Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, I.C.C., April 1, 1903.
[148] An interesting illustration of such determination of separable or extra cost was the computation by which the movement expenses of a train load of 50 cars of grain, 80,000 lbs. to the car, from Buffalo to New York were fixed at $520. I. C. C. Reports, 1903, p. 397. Or again in the estimation of the costs of operation in the express service from New Orleans to Kansas City in the banana trade. I. C. C. Rep., No. 1235, 1908. The able Wisconsin Railroad Commission has carefully studied a number of such cases, notable in its Two-Cent Fare decision of 1906.
[149] Cf. Tunell, Railway Mail Service, Chicago, 1901.
[150] Personal correspondence.
[151] Details in vol. II.
[152] 13 I.C.C. Rep., 357.