An example under the first proposition may be stated briefly, as follows: There are two men engaged in the same line of trade; they are both called upon to bid on a contract involving a large amount of a given commodity in which both deal. The carrier has given notice of an advance in rate, effective thirty days from the filing and publication of the schedule; the commodity is not to move for some days; one of the bidders files his bid, based upon the advanced rate, assuming that the notice of the carrier will be made effective; the other shipper and bidder waits until two or three days before the date the rate is to be made effective, files a protest, confident that it will take three or four months to have the matter adjudicated, files his bid against his competitor, based on the current rate, and being the lowest, secures the contract. An example under the second proposition would be in case of a rate published from St. Louis to be followed differentially from Chicago by a number of competing roads. A shipper on one of the lines, just prior to the taking effect of the rate, would file his protest as to the rate east of Chicago. The differential adjustment that has been made by all these roads will at once be destroyed, and the shipper on the road against which the protest was filed would have the advantage over all of his competitors on the other lines in shipping east. These discriminations between shippers would be the direct result of the power placed by Congress in the hands of shippers and would have received the sanction of legislative approval, and, therefore, be lawful. The statute has taken it out of the power of the carrier to meet such a condition and to prevent the discrimination. It cannot change its rate under thirty days without a special order of the commission, and that order, it must be assumed, cannot be granted without a reasonable hearing. Congress since 1887 has sought by the most stringent measures of legislation to prevent discrimination and preserve equality among shippers. The original act was demanded more to accomplish that purpose than for any other. The Elkins Act was confined almost entirely to the subject, and the act of June 29, 1906, increased the penalties for the violation of these provisions. Should this policy, which has been followed for more than twenty years, be modified and an act passed, the tendency of which is to tempt the cupidity of the shipper to accomplish results which it has earnestly and vigorously fought to stamp out? WOULD PREVENT REDUCTIONS, AS WELL AS ADVANCES, IN RATES, AND DESTROY THEIR FLEXIBILITY.