“Strategy of Great Railroads,” 1904, p. 167. Footnote 195: I confess, however, that I do not see how, in the light of the records in the Colorado Case, the Santa Fe counsel could tell the Senate Committee this year that his road had made no discriminating rates (see above, p. 114). Neither is it easy to see how Mr. Biddle could testify that he had not known of the payment of any rebates for 12 years. The Commission says the Santa Fe paid rebates to the Fuel Company till November, 1904, and other preferences have been unearthed, as we shall see hereafter. Some shippers and some consignees have had better terms than others. Mr. Biddle does not call these preferences rebates. The Commission sees that when the Santa Fe collected the published freight rate, $4.05, from the El Paso people and paid for the coal out of that, instead of collecting the $4.05 as freight and leaving the El Paso folks to pay for the coal in addition, the effect was the same to the El Paso people as the payment of a rebate equal to the value of the coal, and the same to the Fuel Company in respect to securing a monopoly of the market, and so the Commission, looking at the substance of the matter and the form too so far as could be judged from the published tariff, called the payments rebates, or payments out of, or deductions from, the regular tariff rates. Footnote 196: Commissioner Prouty to the Boston Economic Club, March 9, 1905. Footnote 197: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 3607. Footnote 198: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 226, and Rep. 1904, pp. 58–59. Footnote 199: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 367. Testimony of E. M. Ferguson, representing 12 organizations of shippers, State and national. Footnote 200: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 2432. Footnote 201: I. C. C. Decis. 735, March 25, 1905. Footnote 202: Ind. Com. iv, 54. Footnote 203: Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2284, 2429. Footnote 204: _Ibid._, p. 2432. Footnote 205: _Ibid._, p. 18. Footnote 206: Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2484, 2490. Footnote 207: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 2912. Footnote 208: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 675, April 11, 1905; Rep. Dec. 1905, p. 39. Footnote 209: Under the milling-in-transit privilege grain may be shipped into the mill from the West, ground, and shipped out from the mill to New York or other destination at a total cost but little greater than the straight through rate from the West to New York. But a mill without this privilege must pay the rate from the West to Philadelphia, and then the local rate from Philadelphia to New York, making the total cost very much greater. Footnote 210: Some strong statements about this case may be found in the Philadelphia _North American_ August 12, August 20, and other dates during August, 1903. Footnote 211: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 2434. See 10 I. C. C. 1905, p. 505. Footnote 212: