The long-standing controversy over relative rates on wheat and flour for export affords an interesting illustration of the difficulties of properly correlating charges of this sort.[109] Originally the rates on wheat and flour--the raw material and the manufactured product--were the same. In 1890 the railways leading to the Gulf ports began to discriminate by giving lower rates on wheat, but the trunk lines until 1899 held to the original equality between the two. Finally, however, the struggle between the trunk lines and the Gulf roads for business forced the former to lower their rates on wheat, leaving the flour rates--not subject to Gulf competition--undisturbed. At times the rate on wheat for export was as much as nine cents per hundred pounds lower than the rate on flour. Thus the rate on wheat for export from the Mississippi river to the seaboard was frequently twelve cents, while the rate on wheat from the same points to Chicago added to the rate on flour there manufactured and sent on in barrels or bags to New York, was twenty-two cents--a clear discrimination against the domestic manufacturer in this instance of ten cents per hundred pounds. For his American-made flour, sent abroad in competition with flour made in Liverpool from American wheat, would evidently cost that much more at delivery. In other words, wheat could be transported to England and there ground much cheaper than it could be ground here and then shipped. This bore with particular severity upon small millers, partly because their costs of manufacture were relatively high, and also because any limitation of export business forced the large millers to bid more keenly for local domestic trade. Inasmuch as a fair margin of profit to the American manufacturer would not exceed two cents per hundredweight, it is apparent that this discrimination operated severely against the American miller. Minneapolis fortunately was unaffected by this discrimination, much of its exports going out by Canadian lines to the Lakes. The carriers defended this difference in rates on the ground of water competition by the Lakes or combined rail and water routes, which were alone open to wheat, and which thereby unduly lowered the rate on that commodity; and also on the basis of the lower cost of service in moving the raw material as compared with the finished product. It is apparent that issue was really raised in such a case between the interests of the farmer and of the manufacturer. The United States, producing a surplus of wheat the price of which is made on the Liverpool market in competition with the world, is compelled to find an outlet for this product. It is obvious that any reduction of the freight rate--the prices in Liverpool remaining fixed--would inure to the benefit of the farmer, who would thereby receive a higher price for his product. Viewed in this way the railways by discriminating in favor of the rate on wheat were helping the farmers. But, at the