I. C. C. Rep. December, 1905, p. 64. It is to be hoped that the case will go up on appeal and a reversal of the Circuit decision be obtained. Footnote 227: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 590, Feb. 11, 1905; Rep. 1905, p. 31. Footnote 228: Cannon Falls to St. Louis, 10 I. C. C. 650, March, 1905. Footnote 229: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 1775. Mr. Bacon of Milwaukee, speaking for a convention of shippers. Rates to Texas also from Kansas and Missouri points are 5 cents per hundred higher on flour than on wheat, and this differential is not applied on shipments in any other direction from those points. (10 I. C. C. Decis. 1904, 55.) Footnote 230: I. C. C. Cases, 707, 1905. Footnote 231: Proctor and Gamble Case, I. C. C. Rep., 1903, pp. 57–61; 1905. Rep. p. 63. Footnote 232: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 346. Footnote 233: _Ibid._, p. 2742. Footnote 234: _Ibid._, p. 18. Footnote 235: Business Men’s League of St. Louis _v._ many railroads, 9 I. C. C. Decis. 319, Nov. 17, 1902. Footnote 236: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 333, June 25, 1904. Footnote 237: _Ibid._, 327, June 25, 1904. Footnote 238: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 1925. Footnote 239: I. C. C. Dressed-meat Hearings, Dec. 1904, Biddle. Footnote 240: Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 351, 354, 364, 818, 2496. The routing instructions to agents of the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company were introduced. The circular contained a list of the roads over which shipments were to be routed unless shippers insisted on a different routing. Agents were cautioned that “these instructions are confidential and must not be made public. Under no circumstances must representatives of foreign roads or fast lines be allowed to examine the instructions contained in the circular.” (p. 351.) Footnote 241: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 818. Footnote 242: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 354. The witness derived his information as to the sale of tonnage and reciprocal routing agreements from high officials of the railroads, pp. 354, 364. Footnote 243: 10 I. C. C. Decis., 1904, p. 47. Footnote 244: _Ibid._, 422, Jan. 7, 1905. Footnote 245: _Ibid._, 630. Footnote 246: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 226, April 28, 1904; Rep. 1904, p. 58,—held unlawful discrimination. See also p. 78, complaint against W. Va. Northern for refusing due proportions of coal cars. Footnote 247: 134 Fed. Rep. 196; I. C. C. Rep., Dec. 1905, p. 65. Footnote 248: 10 I. C. C. Decis. 699. Footnote 249: _Ibid._, 47, 663. The favored party in this case was an agent for the railroad. No relief could be given. Footnote 250: 11 I. C. C. Decis. 104. Rep. 1905, p. 45. Citing Wight _v._ United States, 167 U. S. 512, and the Midland Case, 168 U. S. 144. Footnote 251: