[233] Cf. testimony in Elkins Committee Report, 1905, p. 2726. The Commerce Court case on page [588], infra, brings it to date.
[234] Cf. Answer of Receivers' and Shippers' Association of Cincinnati to statement of W. J. Murphy, etc., March 15, 1907.
[235] Senate (Elkins) Committee Report, 1905, Digest, Appendix III., p. 231.
[236] 22 I.C.C. Rep., 99 is a case of conceded injustice for fourteen years; yet of a complete deadlock between carriers, broken only by Federal intervention.
[237] Infra.
[238] Chapter XI, infra.
[239] Acworth, "Elements of Railway Economics," p. 125.
[240] Testimony of J. J. Hill, Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, p. 1507; certainly in the Missouri-Mississippi river territory, the Hannibal-St. Joe distance rules.
[241] Especially in the Danville and St. Cloud cases; 8 Int. Com. Rep., 357 and 429. Cf. the Vermont Central case, 1 Idem, 182 and 82: and 7 Idem, 481.
[242] An especially notable instance was the Canadian Pacific differential arbitration in 1898. Proceedings, etc., p. 73, argument of J. C. Stubbs.