UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, Counselman case, 52. discriminations, 59. import rate decision, 85. ruled that I. C. C. cannot fix rates, 92. long-haul decisions, 95. Social Circle case, 100. maximum rates, 218. on pooling, 270. reversals of I. C. C., 283, Appendix A. coal-carrying case, Appendix A. orange routing case, Appendix A. V VANDERBILT, W. H., before Hepburn Committee, 28. stockholder in Standard, 31. W WATSON OF PORTER BROS., 191. WILLCOX, DAVID, criticism of I. C. C., 279. WISCONSIN, railroads give passenger rebates, 17. revelations, 120. WORCESTER WIRE CASE, 292. ----- Footnote 1: See New England Exp. Co. _v._ Maine Central R. R., 57 Me. 188; Fitchburg R. R. _v._ Gage, 12 Gray (Mass.), 393; Kenny _v._ Grand Trunk R. R., 47 N. Y. 525; Messenger _v._ Penn. R. R., 8 Vroom (N. J.), 531; Chicago, etc., R. R. _v._ People, 67 Ill. 11; Wheeler _v._ San Francisco R. R., 31 Cal. 46. Footnote 2: Pass discrimination alone, it is estimated, amounts to some 200,000 free transits a day, or over 70 millions in a year. And as for freight discriminations, the reader who follows this history through will see that like the leaves of the forest they defy computation. Just a hint may be given here. Every day that one of the 300,000 private cars is carried at the present mileage rates, a discrimination is made in favor of the owner of the private car,—a hundred millions of unjust discriminations, possibly, in this one item. Footnote 3: The New York Central, Baltimore and Ohio, and some other lines announced the same purpose as the Pennsylvania in respect to passes after January 1, 1906, but with them as with the Pennsylvania it appears to be a case of more careful discrimination in the use of discrimination, and an appreciation of the fact that it is very important to make a good impression on the public mind just now, in view of the widespread demand for drastic legislation in the direction of railroad regulation. Footnote 4: A number of the States have laws against passes. The Interstate Commerce law forbids them. And they are always against the moral law whether they run beyond the State line or not. Footnote 5: In one case it appeared that a leading railroad attorney had been for years in the habit of supplying jurors with passes. Opposing counsel brought out the fact that all the jurors in the case on trial had accepted passes from the railroad company which was the defendant in the case, and that to have an equal chance for justice his client would have to give each juror $50 to offset the railroad gifts. The judge discharged the whole jury. Footnote 6: