In the report for 1905, p. 13, the Commission refers to the fact that in the reports for 1903 and 1904 some favorable comments were made on the effect of the Elkins Law upon the practice of paying rebates, and says: “Further experience, however, compels us to modify in some degree the hopeful expectations then entertained. Not only have various devices for evading the law been brought into use, but the actual payment of rebates as such has been here and there resumed. [It never stopped in a good many places, judging by the La Follette facts and other evidence, including the statements of many leading railroad men.] Instances of this kind have been established by convincing proof. More frequently the unjust preference is brought about by methods which may escape the penalties of the law, but which plainly operate to defeat its purpose.” Footnote 178: Judge Clements of the Commission, Sen. Com. 1905, p. 3238. Footnote 179: See the admirable summary of the investigation by Ray Stannard Baker in _McClure’s Magazine_ for December, 1905. Footnote 180: The Interstate Commission says: “While giving rebates to the fuel and iron company from tariff rates, it (the Santa Fe Railroad) charged the full tariff rates on interstate shipments of coal by other shippers in not only the general coal region involved, but in the same coal field. This practice of the railway company resulted in closing markets for coal to shippers competing with the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company.” 10 I. C. C. Decis. 473, February, 1905. Footnote 181: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 475. Footnote 182: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 476–480. While the Caledonian Company was trying to get to market on equal terms with the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, they got a letter from the Santa Fe traffic office, Nov. 15, 1900, saying that they could sell their coal to the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, or keep it. Mr. Biddle, however, when shown the letter and questioned about it, admitted the authorship, but said he did not construe the letter as saying anything of the kind. (I. C. C. Santa Fe Hearing, Dec. 1904, p. 154. The text of the letter is not given.) Footnote 183: There was a dispute about the relative steam power of the coals from the different localities, but the point doesn’t seem to be material. Footnote 184: Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 3072, 3073. The Caledonian had a good market before the agreements between the Santa Fe and the Colorado Coal Company were made, and it had many orders afterwards, but could not fill them except at a loss because of favoritism in freight rates. Footnote 185: I. C. C. Hearing, Dec. 1904, pp. 135, 148, Biddle. Footnote 186: