territories, not narrowly, but in a generous way. FOOTNOTES: [64] Testimony before the Hepburn Committee, in 1879, p. 2921, is interesting on this point. [65] U. S. Reports on Internal Commerce, 1876, p. 25. [66] U. S. Industrial Commission, 1900, IX, p. 631. _Cf._ also diagram of European tariffs in Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, V, App. p. 271. [67] P. 165, _infra_. [68] _Cf._ chap. VII, _infra_. [69] Such a tariff on the Illinois Central is charted in Reports, U. S. Industrial Commission, IX, p. 295. [70] Such are commodity as distinct from class rates, described in connection with classification in chap. IX. [71] Tapering rates are discussed by J. M. Clark in Columbia University Studies in History, etc., XXXVII, 1910, chaps. IX and X. _Cf._ also Hammond, Railway Rate Theories, etc., 1911, p. 70. [72] From A. B. Stickney, Railroad Problems, p. 69. [73] _Cf._ note on p. 375. [74] P. 380, _infra_. [75] Chapter X, p. 360, _infra_. [76] The voluminous record in _U. S._ v. _Union Pacific_, etc. (The Merger case), U. S. Supreme Court, October term, 1911, No. 820 abounds in concrete illustrations of all three. _Cf._ esp. Appellant's Brief of Facts, p. 34. [77] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, Digest, App. II, p. 10. [78] Cincinnati Freight Bureau case, 1910, p. 447. [79] Chapter VIII, _infra_. _Cf._ also p. 255. Which line has the advantage? [80] Albert Fink's detailed description of the numberless alternative routes by which traffic moved into the South, is perhaps one of the best instances in print. U. S. Reports Internal Commerce, 1876, App. pp. 1-16. The Danville, Va., case is an admirable instance. 8 Int. Com. Rep., 409; reprinted in Railway Problems, chap. XVI. [81] A notable instance between the Southern and Union Pacific roads since their combination. Described fully in our Railway Problems, rev. ed., chap. XXII. [82] Albert Fink's description in U. S. Reports Internal Commerce, 1876, App. p. 38, is a classic. [83] _Cf._ p. 621, _infra_. Also the dialogue in 21 I.C.C. Rep., 356-359; and _Ibid._, 414. [84] 5 I.C.C. Rep., 299; or 22 _Idem_, 407. Reprinted in Railway Problems. [85] 14 I.C.C. Rep., 476. [86] P. 178, _infra_. [87] 5 I.C.C. Rep., 264; reprinted in our Railway Problems. [88] Discussed on p. 232, _infra_. [89] Chapter IX. [90] Details in chap. VI. [91] _Cf._ Carload Minimum in chap. IX and the Texas system on p. 393, _infra_. The following cases best illustrate these principles: Burnham, Hanna, Munger, etc., 14 I.C.C., 299; and 20 _Idem_, 141; later in 218 U. S. Rep., 88. (P. 442, _infra_.) Greater Des Moines Committee, 14 _Idem_, 294. Indianapolis, Kansas City and Fort Dodge, 16 _Idem_, 57, 195, and 572. Warnock, 21 _Idem_, 546 and 23 _Idem_, 195. St. Louis Business Men's League, 9 _Idem_, 318. And the Wichita cases in chap. VII, p. 232, _infra_. [92] Pp. 248, 392, and 588. Both cases are reprinted in our Railway Problems. [93] Pp. 125, 241, 398. Also in Railway Problems.