172 THE GRANGER MOVEMENT 



of the respective classes. Section 3 contained an elaborate 

 schedule of freight rates for every distance up to 376 miles on 

 merchandise in four classes, with special rates for various staple 

 commodities and three classes of carload rates. The maximum 

 freight charges on roads in the three different classes were 

 regulated by this schedule in proportions of 90, 105, and 120 

 per cent. Section 5 supplemented the schedule by an elaborate 

 classification of freights. Other sections forbade discrimina- 

 tions between persons; but there was no prohibition of dis- 

 crimination between places, provided all rates charged were 

 below the maxima fixed by the bill. The enforcement provisions 

 of the act were unusual: a fund of ten thousand dollars was 

 placed at the disposal of the governor to be used in assisting 

 private individuals to conduct suits for damages under the act; 

 and in addition, all officers or employees, convicted of being 

 party to violations of the act, were to be subjected to fines or 

 imprisonment. 



Such were the carefully drawn provisions 1 of an act which 

 attracted attention all over the United States and even in the 

 financial centers of the old world. With such an act and forti- 

 fied by the numerous reservations of rights contained in the 

 railway charters and grants, it seemed as if the state of Iowa 

 was in a fair way to establish effective control of the railroad 

 business within its limits. That even the railroad companies 

 were convinced that the state's position was practically invul- 

 nerable, from the standpoint of legality, is indicated by the 

 greater measure of obedience which they rendered to this statute 

 than to the Granger laws of the other states. 2 



1 Peter A. Dey, later railroad commissioner of Iowa and an opponent of this 

 sort of legislation, declared, " that the Iowa legislation, for fixed legislation, was the 

 most perfect that man could get up." Cullom Committee, Report, ii. 958. See 

 also Larrabee, Railroad Question, 332; Dixon, State Railroad Control, 27. 



2 Commissioner McDill in Cullom Committee, Report, ii. 945; Chicago, Bur- 

 lington, and Quincy, Railroad Company, Annual Reports, 1876, p. ii; Governor 

 Carpenter, in Legislative Documents, 1876, i. no. i, pp. 10-13; Governor Newbold, 

 in Legislative Documents, 1878, i. no. i, p. 27. Dixon is quite unjustified in saying 

 that " the attitude assumed by the railroad companies was that either of indiffer- 

 ence or of open hostility." Dixon, State Control of Railroads, 28. See, however, 

 p. 174, note 4, below. 



