STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY 85 



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 condi- 

 tion 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 pre- 

 sumption 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 persist- 

 ence 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 man- 

 agers 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 rail- 

 way management? Was not the railway in common with other indus- 

 tries amenable to competition ? Those in the higher walks of life, with 

 rare exceptions, deprecated the attitude of the farmers. Their position 



