The Commission has condemned the rates from New Orleans to Danville, Va., as excessive in comparison with the rates on the longer haul to Lynchburg;[149] also the rates on sugar and molasses from New Orleans to Nashville as higher than on the long haul to Louisville;[150] the rates from New York, Cincinnati, Chattanooga, Nashville, and New Orleans, as discriminating against Dawson and in favor of Americus, Eufaula, and Albany;[151] undue preference to Sioux City against Sioux Falls, in the rates from Chicago and Duluth;[152] and many other discriminations between localities, and violations of the long and short haul clause;[153] yet all the complaints and decisions, numerous as they have been, are but a cupful from the sea; and the evils removed in pursuance of orders of the Commission which the Courts neglected to overrule form an insignificant group compared to the mass that remained untouched. CHAPTER XVI. TEN YEARS OF FEDERAL REGULATION. In “A Decade of Federal Railway Regulation,” after describing various forms of discrimination, H. T. Newcomb says: “The conditions described are fairly typical of those existing all over the United States. The Interstate Commerce Law has mitigated but slightly, if at all, the evil of unjust discrimination between individuals, has in but few and relatively insignificant instances moderated unjust discriminations between articles or classes of traffic, and has almost wholly failed to remedy the far more serious inequities in rate-making, which operate to the disadvantage of towns, cities, or districts.”[154] In 1897 the President of the Big Four Railway said: “Never in the history of railways have tariffs been so little respected as to-day. Private arrangements and understandings are more plentiful than regular rates. The larger shippers, the irresponsible shippers, are obtaining advantages which must sooner or later prove the ruin of smaller and more conservative traders, and in the end will break up many of the commercial houses in this country and ruin the railways. A madness seems to have seized upon some railway managers, and a large portion of the freight of the country is being carried at prices far below cost.... There is a much more dangerous view, and that is the demoralization of the men conducting these numerous enterprises and the want of respect for the law which is being developed by the present situation.... There is less faith to-day between railway managers, with reference to their agreements to maintain tariffs, than was probably ever known on earth in any other business. Men managing large corporations who would trust their opponent with their pocket-book with untold thousands in it, will hardly trust his agreement for the maintenance of tariffs while they are in the room together. Good faith seems to have departed from the railway world, so far as traffic agreements are concerned.”[155]