[243] It is also the rule in France. Senate (Elkins) Committee, V, p. [273]. Cf. the Superior grain case. I.C.C., decided June 25, 1912.
[244] Cf. Mr. Fink's testimony in Hearings Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, 51st Cong. 1st session, Sen. Rep., 847, p. 29.
[245] Solution of transcontinental dilemma depends upon this choice. Railway Age Gazette, Nov. 25, 1910. Cf. chaps. XI and XIX, infra.
[246] 19 I.C.C. Rep., 218 affords an excellent example as between the Union Pacific and the Denver and Rio Grande. Also the Montgomery, Ala., case in the Commerce Court, p. [590], infra. Also the Union Pacific Merger case, Brief of Facts for Appellants, 1912, p. [276].
[247] For an instance in the tobacco business: Cf. The Atlantic Monthly, 1908, p. 487.
CHAPTER VIII
PROBLEMS OF ROUTING
Neglect of distance, an American peculiarity, [264].—Derived from joint cost, [265].—Exceptional cases, [265].—Economic waste in American practice, [268].—Circuitous rail carriage, [269].—Water and rail-and-water shipments, [273].—Carriage over undue distance, [277].—An outcome of commercial competition, [278].—Six causes of economic waste, illustrated, [280].—Pro-rating and rebates, [281].—Five effects of disregard of distance, [288].—Dilution of revenue per ton mile, [289].—Possible remedies for economic waste, [292].—Pooling and rate agreements, [293].—The long and short haul remedy, [295].