ver, admits that the Granger method was
probably as good a method as could have been devised of approaching men
who had thoroughly got it into their heads that they, as common
carriers, were in no way bound to afford equal facilities to all, and,
indeed, that it was in the last degree absurd and unreasonable to expect
them to do so.

The Iowa law was imperfect in detail, and yet its enactment proved one
of the greatest legislative achievements in the history of the State. It
demonstrated to the people their ability to correct by earnestness and
perseverance the most far-reaching public abuses and led to an emphatic
judicial declaration of the common-law principle that railroads are
highways and as such are subject to any legislative control which may be
deemed necessary for the public welfare.

Defeated in the courts, the railroad managers now endeavored to make
odious the new law which deprived them of the power to manipulate
railroad interests to their personal advantage. By complying with only
part of its letter and none of its spirit, they contrived to create
hardships for certain interests and localities. Instead of charging in
all cases reasonable rates, as the spirit of the law demanded, they
would frequently charge the maximum rates permitted under the law, and
when they by this practice succeeded in damaging certain interests, they
would point to the Granger law as the source of all existing railroad
evils. So, likewise, when they were asked by their patrons to reduce a
high rate, they would plead the legislative schedule in excuse of their
failure to comply with the request. When the legislature of 1878
convened, the railroad managers appeared before it and pleaded
submissively for a repeal of the Granger law and the establishment of a
commissioner system. They claimed that they were ready and willing to
submit to all reasonable regulation, but that a maximum tariff law was
prejudicial both to the best interests of the roads and those of the
public. They further asserted that the people had grown tired of this
manner of regulating railroad charges and earnestly desired a change of
policy; that the interference of the State with the railroad business
had injuriously affected certain industrial interests and had greatly
retarded railroad construction by driving capital and promoters of
railroad enterprises from the State. These statements would indeed have
argued strongly in favor of a repeal of the law if they