the law
temporarily with impunity, they will never be able to prevail upon the
American people to abandon the policy of railroad reform which the
passage of the Interstate Commerce Law inaugurated.

The Interstate Commerce Commissioners say in their sixth annual report:

"Whoever will read the report of the special committee of
the United States Senate, commonly called the 'Cullom
Committee,' will be astounded at the magnitude and extent of
railroad abuses brought to light by their investigation.
Those unfamiliar with the facts made public at that time can
hardly believe the outrages which were proven to exist and
the manifold devices by which the most flagrant injustice
was perpetrated. A single illustration will furnish a better
reminder than extended comment.

"It appears from that report that the Standard Oil Company,
in one instance at least, boldly demanded from a certain
railroad that its shipments should be carried for 10 cents a
barrel; that all other shippers should be charged 35 cents a
barrel on the same article, and that 25 cents of the 35 paid
by such other shippers should be handed over by the railroad
to the Standard Oil Company, and the penalty threatened for
non-compliance with this impudent extortion was a withdrawal
of its entire business.

"The foregoing statements but imperfectly describe the
situation which existed when the Interstate Commerce Law was
enacted. In any reasonable view of the case it was too much
to expect that the common and long continued abuses of
railroad management could be corrected in less than half a
dozen years, or that the first scheme of legislative
regulation would prove adequate to that end. It would be
contrary to all experience if so great and radical a reform
could be thus speedily accomplished, or if the initial
statute should be found sufficient to bring it about. The
law was the outgrowth of an aroused and determined public
sentiment, which, while united in demanding Government
interference, was divided and uncertain as to the best
methods of affording relief. Like all attempts in a new
field of legislation, the statute was a compromise between
divergent theories and conflicting interests. It was
scarcely possible that it should be so complete and