Mr. Biddle says the coal rate circular was issued by his authority and continued a practice that was in effect when the Santa Fe operated the mines, but he could not say whether it was “simply continued at the time the Colorado Company acquired the mines or whether there were negotiations under which it was done” (I. C. C. Hearing, Dec. 1904, pp. 135, 136, 147, 148). Footnote 187: A copy of this circular bearing the name of the traffic manager of the Santa Fe was taken without permission by a dealer at El Paso from the Santa Fe office there. Footnote 188: I. C. C. Santa Fe Hearing, Dec. 1904, p. 8. Footnote 189: I. C. C. Santa Fe Hearing, Dec. 1904, pp. 146–148. Footnote 190: Sen. Com., 1905, p. 848. Footnote 191: Mr. Morton’s letter to President Roosevelt, June 5, 1905. Secretary Morton continues: “The tariff covering this arrangement was published so as to show the freight rate to be $4.05 per ton instead of the delivered price at El Paso and Deming, and did not separate the freight rate from the cost of the coal at the mines, as it should have done. Until the investigation of the case by the Interstate Commerce Commission I did not know personally how the matter was being handled, so far as the publication of the tariff was concerned. My own connection with the case was to see that the traffic was secured to the Atchison rails, and after that details were left to subordinates.” Footnote 192: Mr. Biddle testified that the same thing had been done for other coal companies, and in one instance at least it was shown that it had been done for the Victor Fuel Company, but in this case “the price of the coal and the rate of freight were kept entirely separate, the price of coal being treated in the nature of an advance charge.” The Commission says further “If the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company had in all cases paid the published tariff rate which was exacted from other shippers, the fact that the price of the coal and the freight were included in a single item would have worked no practical advantage to that company so far as we can see. Neither, apparently, would there have been any reason for this arrangement if the purpose of the parties had been honest. If, however, there existed upon the part of the Santa Fe Company an intent to charge the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company less for the transportation of its coal than the published rate, it is evident that this method of billing would afford a ready means for concealing the transaction. In point of fact, during the entire period covered by this investigation (July 1899 to Nov. 27, 1904) the Santa Fe Company did transport coal for the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company for less than its open tariff rates, and these concessions amounted in many cases to the price of the coal itself.” (10 I. C. C. Decis. 482, Feb. 1905.) Footnote 193: See 10 I. C. C. Decis. 473, 487, 488, Feb. 1, 1905. Footnote 194: