“There is ample law to-day” to stop rebates and unjust discriminations, says President Tuttle of the Boston and Maine (Sen. Com. 1905, p. 951), and he backs up his statement with vigorous reasons for believing that the Government has never earnestly enforced existing laws. President Ramsey of the Wabash also says that the present law is ample to cover every unjust charge, and no further legislation is needed to stop discrimination (Same, p. 1959). George R. Peck, general counsel for the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, testified that “existing law is entirely adequate” (Same, p. 1301). Mr. Robbins, manager of the Armour Car-Lines and director in Armour & Co., declares that the “Elkins Law is ample” (Same, p. 2387). See also p. 2117, James J. Hill; pp. 2179, 2181, Carle; p. 2228, Grinnell; p. 3068, Faxon; pp. 3274, 3276, 3285, 3290, Elliott; p. 2360, Woodworth; p. 2829, Smith. Footnote 367: A number of witnesses declare that the delays and uncertainties and inadequacies of redress under existing laws discourage shippers from efforts to obtain relief. Mr. C. W. Robinson, representing the New Orleans Board of Trade and the Central Yellow Pine Association, says they had such bad luck with their lumber cases before the United States courts that they are discouraged. “‘Don’t you think that the question of rebates and discriminations is already covered by law and can be stopped by summary proceedings?’ “MR. ROBINSON. That they are not stopped is patent to every one who uses a railway company as a shipper and who keeps his eyes open. “‘Has there been any suit brought within the last two or three years for rebates and discriminations in this section of the country?’ “MR. ROBINSON. No; generally speaking, we have decided down there that life is too short to litigate with the railroad companies” (Sen. Com. 1905, p. 2492). Governor Cummins of Iowa says that no suits have been brought in Iowa for discrimination under the Elkins Law because the remedy under that law is regarded as inadequate (Sen. Com. p. 2081). It appears that only one case, the Wichita sugar differential, is before the I. C. C. under the Elkins Law (Sen. Com. p. 2874). Footnote 368: Fifer, Adams, etc., Sen. Com. pp. 2923, 3338. Footnote 369: Vining, Sen. Com. p. 1691, Knapp, p. 3294, etc. Robbins, however, manager of the Armour Car-Lines, says they are opposed to being made common carriers (pp. 2384, 2397, 2400). He says they do not indulge in rebates, generally speaking (pp. 2382, 2387, 2403), and thinks they would be worse off if put under the Interstate Law (pp. 2390, 2397, 2401). Footnote 370: