We have seen earlier in this chapter that a number of railroad men and others told the Senate Committee that they believed rebates and discriminations to have ceased. In his excellent book, “The Strategy of Great Railroads,” Mr. Spearman says: “Alexander J. Cassatt has made unjust discrimination in railroad traffic a thing of the past.” Sometimes we are assured: “There can be no doubt but that, on the whole, the freight rates of the country have been adjusted in very nearly the best way possible for the upbuilding of the country’s commerce.” (See “Freight Rates that were made by the Railroads,” W. D. Taylor, _Review of Reviews_, July, 1905, p. 73.) For one who has in mind the facts brought out in this book, comment on these statements is hardly necessary. There is no doubt that President Cassatt is a railroad commander of exceptional power, but he has not vanquished the smokeless rebate, nor driven the hosts of unjust discrimination from the railroads of the United States. Footnote 351: Ind. Com. Q. & Ans. iv, p. 596. Footnote 352: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 1474. Footnote 353: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 1521. The Texas Railway Commission says: “It is plain that, if a railway company is permitted to become interested in any kind of business competitive with business in the carrying on of which for others it is engaged, the business in which it is interested can be made to prosper at the expense of the business in which it has no interest. The temptation to unfair discrimination in such a case is so powerful that it ought to be removed.” (Report, 1896, p. 29.) Footnote 354: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 17. Footnote 355: I. C. C. Rep. 1898, p. 6. Footnote 356: I. C. C. Rep. 1898, p. 8. Footnote 357: On pages 65 and 66 of the last Report, Dec. 1905, the Commission discusses a decision of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, in June last, to the effect that a _subpœna duces tecum_, commanding the secretary and treasurer of a corporation supposed to have violated the law to testify before the grand jury, and bring numerous agreements, letters, telegrams, etc.,—practically all the correspondence and documents of the company originating since the date of its origin,—to enable the district attorney to ascertain whether evidence of the alleged breach of law exists, constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure of papers prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Footnote 358: Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2899–2901, 2911. Footnote 359: Sen. Com. 1905, p. 829. Footnote 360: I. C. C. Beef Hearing, Dec. 1901, pp. 100, 101. Footnote 361: I. C. C. Beef Hearing, Dec. 1901, pp. 114–115. Footnote 362: _Ibid._, p. 126. Footnote 363: Report of Oregon Railway Commission, 1889, p. 32. Footnote 364: See above, p. 237. Footnote 365: See above, p. 113. Footnote 366: