This trick was resorted to by the oily people many years ago, but the railroads, realizing its potency in eluding the rebate prohibitions, have lately extended its sphere of usefulness and it is becoming quite frequent. See Sen. Com. 1905, p. 2123. Footnote 213: Ind. Com. iv, 544. The name “midnight tariff” by which this scheme is known probably fits the case, but “flying tariff” is perhaps still more appropriate. Footnote 214: _Outlook_, July 1, 1905, p. 579. Footnote 215: Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2911, 2912, Commissioner Prouty; 2123, President Stickney. See also p. 3231, and 10 I. C. C. Decis. 317. Footnote 216: Mr. Moffat was asked if he thought the allowances ought to be made. He said: “I think that it ought to be made to the big shippers. I think the man who ships 100,000 bushels a month ought to get a little better deal than the man who ships only 1,000 bushels a year.” Commissioner Cockrell replied: “There is where I think you are entirely wrong. No government could live under such a condition. The rich would soon absorb everything and the small man would be wiped out of existence. The whole business we are on now started from a railroad giving a man a rebate. The minute the railroad does a thing like that it opens the way to a swindling petty graft and bigger grafting and crooked work. It is wrong, all wrong. It is so wrong that nobody knows what to call it. Down in Louisville they call it a ‘swag.’ Here you call it an ‘allowance.’ It is all wrong.” Footnote 217: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 274, June 4, 1904. Footnote 218: _Ibid._, 255, June 4, 1904. The practice was held unjust. Footnote 219: _Ibid._, 489, Feb. 2, 1895. Duluth Shingle Co. _v._ Northern Pacific, Great Northern, Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, and other railroads. Footnote 220: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 452, Jan. 7, 1905. Footnote 221: Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2432, 2433. Footnote 222: 11 I. C. C. Decis. 104. Footnote 223: 10 _ibid._, 428, Jan. 1905. Footnote 224: Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 3426, 3427. S. H. Cowan, attorney of Cattle Growers’ Interstate Committee; Chicago Board of Trade _v._ C. & A. R. R., 4 I. C. C. Decis. 158. Footnote 225: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 428. Chicago Live-Stock Exchange _v._ Chicago and Great Western. See also I. C. C. Rep. 1905, pp. 42, 63. Footnote 226: The United States Circuit Court has refused to enforce the order of the Commission on the ground that the Chicago Great Western reduced the rate for competitive reasons to get its share of the tariff. The Commission justly says: “If the decision of the Circuit Court in this case is sound any carrier is justified in making the widest discriminations in rates as between competing commodities, regardless of the effect upon non-favored industries, by simply asserting the existence of general competition and the desire to increase the traffic in particular commodities over its line.”