The heart of the railroad problem: The history of railway discrimination in the United States, the chief efforts at control and the remedies proposed, with hints from other countriesParsons, Frank
History
The heart of the railroad problem: The history of railway discrimination in the United States, the chief efforts at control and the remedies proposed, with hints from other countries
Parsons, Frank
Railroads -- Freight -- Rates -- United States; Railroads and state -- United States
_Ibid._ See 10 I. C. C. Decis. 650, and Rep. 1905, p. 36.
Footnote 313:
Complaint of Denver Chamber of Commerce, Sen. Com. 1905, p. 3257.
Footnote 314:
Sen. Com. 1905, p. 3336.
Footnote 315:
Question of Mr. Fifer of Interstate Commission to Sen. Com. 1905, p.
3337.
Footnote 316:
Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2930, 2940.
Footnote 317:
_Ibid._, p. 2914.
Footnote 318:
See statements of Chamber of Commerce of Spokane and testimony of its
representative, Brooks Adams, Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2917, 2928.
Footnote 319:
Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2527–2529.
Footnote 320:
Senator Dolliver, Sen. Com. 1905, p. 2094.
Footnote 321:
Sen. Com. 1905, p. 1870.
Footnote 322:
10 I. C. C. Decis. 456, Jan. 13, 1905.
Footnote 323:
See the series of broadsides on these subjects in the Philadelphia
_North American_ during August, 1903, and the early part of 1904. An
excursion ticket from Washington to New York and return allowed 10
days in New York. Formerly a southern buyer going north on such a
ticket could stop over in Philadelphia. But in 1903 this stop-over
privilege was revoked, and if the buyer stopped in Philadelphia and
then bought an excursion to New York he could only stay five days in
New York. The result was that southern buyers began to leave
Philadelphia out in the cold and merchants found that “the present
tariff arrangements are working incalculable injury to wholesale
houses in Philadelphia,” and some of them had to open houses in New
York.
Footnote 324:
Ind. Com. ix, p. 133.
Footnote 325:
4 I. C. C. Decis. 593. The order was made May 29, 1894, on petition of
the Freight Bureau of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce _v._ 23
railway companies, and the Chicago Freight Bureau _v._ 31 railways and
5 steamship companies. The companies refused to comply and the Circuit
Court dismissed the bill for an enforcement, October, 1896, 62 Fed.
Rep. 690; 76 Fed. Rep. 183.
Footnote 326:
I. C. C. _v._ Railway, 167 U. S. 479, May, 1897, reaffirming 162 U. S.
184 and citing 145 U. S. 263, 267. Justice Harlan dissented.
Footnote 327:
“Railroad Transportation,” p. 114.
Footnote 328:
Sen. Com. 1905, p. 844.
Footnote 329:
_Atlantic Monthly_, vol. 73, p. 803, June, 1894.
Footnote 330:
E. P. Alexander in “Railway Practice,” p. 8.
Footnote 331:
Ind. Com. iv, p. 194.
Footnote 332:
10 I. C. C. Decis. 1904, p. 58.
Footnote 333:
Sen. Com., 1905, p. 19, Bacon.
Footnote 334:
_Ibid._, p. 19.
Footnote 335:
J. C. Wallace of the American Shipbuilding Co., June 28, 1904, to the
Congressional Merchant Marine.
Footnote 336:
See Wright’s letter printed in the speech of Senator Bacon of Georgia,
_Congressional Record_, April 25, 1904.
Footnote 337:
Testimony of James J. Hill before the Marine Commission.
Footnote 338:
10 I. C. C. Decis. 1904, p. 81.
Footnote 339:
Sen. Com. 1905, p. 919.
Footnote 340:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account