belongs to the old school of railroad men, who have not yet accepted the
Granger decision. Referring to it, he says:

"This decision was not unanimous, and the reasoning
presented was not so convincing as to command universal
acceptance. It was at once challenged by the corporations,
and has been from time to time attacked in the same
tribunal; it has not yet been withdrawn, but it has been
materially modified, notably in a case from Minnesota,
decided in 1890, when it was established that there is a
limit beyond which the State cannot go in reducing railway
rates, which limit would be passed in case a State should
attempt to deprive a corporation of its property, without
due process of law, by fixing rates too low to permit of a
fair remuneration for its use. A large debatable ground yet
remains open, with a possibility that the position of the
railway in Federal jurisprudence may eventually be radically
modified."

The passage quoted clearly indicates that railroad men expect better
things of the court in the future, but Mr. Walker is much mistaken in
supposing the court materially modified the Granger decision, as will be
seen by referring to the case of Budd vs. the State of New York, decided
in February, 1892, by the same court.

Mr. Walker, unlike Mr. Depew, candidly admits the former universality of
the evil of discrimination. He says:

"In order to secure traffic, a railway official felt called
upon to underbid his rival. He gave the shipper a private
rate, a rebate, a free pass--anything in the shape of a
concession or a favor. The land was honeycombed with special
arrangements of innumerable forms, all secret, because
otherwise they would have been useless, and all forced upon
the carriers by the exigencies of unbridled competition.
Many shippers became wealthy from such gains. Others were
envious of like success. At last the public sense of justice
demanded a reform."

And Mr. Walker's candor rises to a still higher pitch when he admits
that the ingenuity of railroad managers has found ways to evade the
Interstate Commerce Law. The following passage from the Commissioner's
article will, no doubt, be a great surprise to such law-abiding and
confiding managers as Mr. Depew:

"There was nothing in the law specifically forbidding the
payment of