its recommendations had practically the same effect as a statute, for there was ever the possibility of the legislature enacting them into a law. On the other hand, if its recommendations went beyond those for which the public was willing to stand, the mistake of carrying state regulation too far was avoided. The progress of railway monopoly, however, finally carried the day for a commission with mandatory power over rates and other matters.
The chief point of attack upon the railways has been discriminations. The general average of railway rates has been so low that there has been comparatively little complaint on that score. There is, however, a pronounced tendency to subject the general average of rates to state control as railway consolidation more and more approximates a condition of monopoly. But the burden of protest has been that some rates are out of proportion to others, and the facts narrated above are but milestones in the efforts of a people to realize conditions that square more nearly with the sense of justice. Some of the legislation that has been passed has been enacted with undue haste and in a spirit of resentment, and in attempting to get rid of discriminations and at the same time preserve competition some of it has been contradictory. But to hold that it is at bottom the work of self-seeking demagogues and hair-brained agitators is to overlook the very real grievances that have existed and to underestimate the general good sense and intelligence of the people. The main trend of railway legislation in the United States is so much in accord with that in other countries as to warrant the presumption that it is moving in the right direction. As compared with those countries in which the railways are owned and operated by the state, American railway policy is moderation itself. The demand for public regulation is not a popular caprice of the moment. Its persistence and increase in the face of hostile court decisions and in spite of blundering mistakes forbid this view. In the future as in the past, "fool legislation" may result in a temporary reaction. But few railway managers look for a relaxation of governmental control, and many of them will be surprised if they do not get more. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Minnesota rate case not only upheld the authority of the state in the main, but it suggested that federal control of interstate commerce has not yet been pushed to its constitutional limits. The end is not yet in sight.
When the farmers of certain western states in the early seventies arose against the railways, there was a general disposition to treat them with contempt. Were they not a lot of ignorant frontiersmen? What chance had they against the railways? What did they know about railway management? Was not the railway in common with other industries amenable to competition? Those in the higher walks of life, with rare exceptions, deprecated the attitude of the farmers. Their position
