We have just seen how discriminations originated. We may now properly turn to a study of their nature and character. Briefly stated railroad discriminations may be grouped as follows: (1) discriminations among products, (2) discriminations among localities, and (3) discriminations among persons, firms, or corporations. Discriminations among products create less opposition than do discriminations in either of the other two cases, largely because they have not been widespread, and hence have affected few people. The best example is found in a comparison of wheat and flour fates from the upper lake region to the Atlantic seaboard. Not many years ago the railroads which connected those two sections of the country charged a very low rate on east-bound wheat and a correspondingly high rate on flour in the same direction. The result was, so Minnesota millers claimed, that exporters preferred to have their wheat ground in the mills along the coast.

Discriminations among localities have been more serious in that they have affected more people, and have created in the minds of the public a suspicion that the managers practicing these discriminations have profited financially. Discriminations of this character have usually taken form in favors granted one city and withheld from its rivals. Oftentimes the result has been prosperity for the one and stagnation for the others. No doubt if all the reasons for making this kind of discrimination were known it would be found that they were many and varied; yet the chief reason has usually been that the railroad making the discrimination had valuable property in the favored city.

The most repulsive form of railroad discrimination is among persons, firms, or corporations; for it violates all the rules of fair play by giving one competitor an unfair advantage over another. The worst offender in this respect seems to have been the Standard Oil Company, which, with its enormous wealth and influence, was able to force railroads to do its bidding. At one time this company compelled the railroads, not only to give it special rates on refined oil, but also to pay into its treasury a portion of the freight they collected from competing refineries.

It would be misleading to close this discussion without calling attention to two pertinent facts. First, the various discriminations just noticed are now illegal and, let it be hoped, little practiced. Second, the railroads themselves were often unwilling partners in the discriminations, though it must be said on the testimony of expert railroad administrators that ordinarily it was more profitable to give one large shipper low rates in return for his entire business than to exact a higher rate from a number of smaller shippers who were at any moment likely to be won over by competing lines.