Among the many people whose advice and criticism has been central to the development of this project, I especially thank Peri Arnold, Walter Dean Burnham, Joshua Cohen, Donald Critchlow, Victoria Hattam Morton Horwitz, James Livingston, Charles Sabel, Phillip Scranton, and the editors of this journal.

1. See pages 141–46.

2. See pages 161–65.

3. McCraw, Thomas K., Prophets of Regulation: Charles Francis Adams, Louis D. Brandeis, James M. Landis, Alfred E. Kahn (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 68Google Scholar; Letwin, William, Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust Act (New York: Random House, 1965)Google Scholar.

4. For this interpretation of the Wabash case, see Martin, Albro, “Railroads and the Equity Receivership: An Essay in Institutional Change,” Journal of Economic History 34 (09 1974):686–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more general statement of this view of legal change, see Hurst, Willard, Law and the Conditions of Freedom (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1956)Google Scholar; Hurst, Willard, The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1970)Google Scholar; and Freyer, Tony Allan, Forums of Order: The Federal Courts and Business in American History (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1979)Google Scholar.

5. Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keller, Morton, Affairs of State: Public Life in Late Nineteenth Century America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977), 358–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Theda Skocpol and John Ikenberry, “The Political Formation of the American Welfare State in Historical and Comparative Perspective,” Comparative Social Research 6 (1983):25–27.

6. See especially Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belnap Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, and Tedlow, Richard S., The Coming of Managerial Capitalism: A Casebook on the History of American Economic Institutions (Homewood, I11.: Richard D. Irwin, 1985)Google Scholar; McCraw, Prophets of Regulation, 1–152; Galambos, Louis, “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in American History,” Business History Review 44 (Autumn 1983)Google Scholar; and Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, and Galambos, Louis, “The Development of Large-Scale Economic Organizations in Modern America,” Journal of American History (03 1970)Google Scholar.

7. For a more general critique of technological determinism, see Sabel, Charles F., Work and Politics: The Division of Labor in Industry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sabel, Charles F. and Zeitlin, Jonathan, “Historical Alternatives to Mass Production,” Past and Present (08 1985)Google Scholar; Scranton, Philip, Proprietary Capitalism: The Textile Manufacture at Philadelphia, 1880–1885 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 1–71Google Scholar; Livingston, James, Origins of the Federal Reserve System (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986), 33–67Google Scholar; Unger, Roberto M., Social Theory, Its Situation and Its Task (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

8. Skowronek, Building a New American State; Keller, Affairs of State, 358–70.

9. Purcell, Edward A. Jr, “Ideas and Interests: Businessmen and the Interstate Commerce Act,” Journal of American History 54 (12 1967):561–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vietor, Richard H. K., “Businessmen and the Political Economy: The Railroad Rate Controversy of 1905,” Journal of American History 64 (06 1977):47–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More generally, see Wiebe, Robert, The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967)Google Scholar; and Hays, Samuel P., The Response to Industrialism, 1885–1914 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

10. Bensen, Lee, Merchants, Farmers and Railroads: Railroad Regulation and New York Politics, 1850–1887 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, Albro, “The Troubled Subject of Railroad Regulation in the Gilded Age,” Journal of American History 61 (09 1974):339–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, Albro, Enterprise Denied: Origins of the Decline of American Railroads, 1897–1917 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

11. Kolko, Gabriel, Railroads and Regulation, 1877–1916 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, “The Troubled Subject of Railroad Regulation.”

12. On this approach, see Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973)Google Scholar; Bourdieu, Pierre, Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans, by Nice, Richard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gordon, Robert, “Critical Legal Histories,” Stanford Law Review 36 (01 1984):57–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Smith, Rogers M., “Political Jurisprudence, The ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law,” American Political Science Review 82 (03 1988):89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. On the use of competing or alternative ideal types (or models) in historical explanation, see Stinchecombe, Arthur L., Theoretical Methods in Social History (New York: Academic Press, 1978)Google Scholar.

14. On the confluence of liberal legal science and social darwinism, of which this perspective on the railroad corporation is only one example, see Gordon, Robert, “Legal Thought and Legal Practice in the Age of Enterprise,” in Gieson, G. L., ed., Professions and Professional Ideologies in America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 71–139Google Scholar; Montgomery, David, Beyond Equality, Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862–1872 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967), 379–86Google Scholar; Horwitz, Morton J., “Santa Clara Revisited: The Development of Corporate Theory,” West Virginia Law Review 88 (1985): 173–224Google Scholar; and Lustig, R. Jeffery, Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modern American Political Theory, 1890–1920 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982)Google Scholar. The quotation concerning the laws of trade is from corporate jurist William Cooke and cited in Horwitz, “Santa Clara Revisited,” 196.

15. On the ideology of nineteenth-century republicanism, see Montgomery, Beyond Equality, 72–89; Foner, Eric, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (London: Oxford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Hattam, Victoria, “Economic Visions and Political Strategies: American Labor and the State, 1865–1905,” Studies in American Political Development, 4 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oestreicher, Richard, “Terrence Powderly, The Knights of Labor and Artisanal Republicanism,” in Dubofsky, Melvyn and Tine, Warren Van, eds., Labor Leaders in America (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 30–60Google Scholar.

16. The view that railroads were built ahead of demand has been explored by Fogel, Robert W., The Union Pacific, A Case in Premature Enterprise (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964)Google Scholar;and, exclusively for the period before the war, by Fishlow, Albert, American Railroads and the Transformation of the Ante-Bellum Economy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

17. See especially Chandler, The Visible Hand, 79–205; Chandler and Tedlow, The Coming of Managerial Capitalism, 173–309; Klein, Maury, “The Strategy of Southern Railroads,” American Historical Review 78 (04 1968): 1052–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McCraw, Prophets of Regulation, 1–56.

18. Ripley, William Z., Railroads: Finance and. Organization (New York: Longmans, Green, 1915)Google Scholar; Goodrich, Carter, Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 1800–1890 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960)Google Scholar.

19. For citations to histories of alternative financial and banking policies, see n. 22.

20. There is an enormous literature on national monetary policy during this period, but for good summaries, see Myers, Margaret G., A Financial History of the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 149–63Google Scholar; Sharkey, Robert P., Money, Class and Party: An Economic Study of Civil War and Reconstruction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), 15–55Google Scholar; Keller, Affairs of State, 191–95. On railroad securities held abroad and the predominance of debt in railroad finance, see Myers, Margaret G., The New York Money Market (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931), 290–91Google Scholar; Sakolski, A. M., American Railroad Economics (New York: Macmillan, 1913)Google Scholar; Willis, H. Parker and Bogen, Julius I., Investment Banking (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1929), 176–78Google Scholar; and Adler, Dorothy R., British Investment in American Railways, 1834–1898 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1970), 166–68Google Scholar.

21. See Sylla, Richard Eugene, The American Capital Market, 1846–1914 (New York: Arno Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Berk, Gerald, “Corporations and Politics: American Railroads, 1870–1916,” (Ph.D. diss., MIT, 1987), 243–46Google Scholar; Sharkey, Robert P., “Commercial Banking,” in Gilchrist, David T. and Lewis, W. David, eds., Economic Change in the Civil War Era (Greenville, Del.: Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation, 1965), 23–31Google Scholar.

22. The fight over national banking and monetary policy, as historians Lawrence Goodwyn and Chester Destler have pointed out, was not merely over the quantity of money in circulation, but also over the distribution of entitlements to credit in American society. Quite roughly, these historians have shown how third-party, labor, and agrarian movements proposed a national subtreasury plan whose intent was to provide an autonomous source of credit to noncorporate cooperative, regionalist, and smaller scale ventures in industry and agriculture. On the “subtreasury plan,” see Goodwyn, Lawrence, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Destler, Chester McArthur, “The Influence of Edward Kellogg,” in Chester McArthur Destler, American Radicalism, 1865–1901: Essays and Documents (New London: Connecticut College, 1946), 50–77Google Scholar; and Berk, “Corporations and Politics,” 222–64. On the money question more generally, see Robert P. Sharkey, Money, Class and Party; and Nugent, Walter, Money and American Society, 1865–1880 (New York: Free Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

23. Navins, Thomas R. and Sears, Marian V., “The Rise of a Market for Industrial Securities, 1887–1902,” Business History Review 29 (06 1955): 105–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Seen. 21.

25. Chandler and Tedlow, The Coming of Managerial Capitalism, 173.

26. Williamson, Oliver, “The Modern Corporation: Origins, Evoulation, Attributes,” Journal of Economic Literature 19 (12 1981): 1537–68Google Scholar.

27. Chandler and Tedlow, The Coming of Managerial Capitalism, 227–56; Chandler, The Visible Hand, 145–87.

28. On the theory of receivership procedure, see Berle, Adolph A. Jr, “Receivership,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1933), 149–53Google Scholar; Swain, Henry H., “Economic Aspects of Railroad Receiverships,” Economic Studies of the American Economic Association 3 (1889): 1–53Google Scholar; Dewing, Arthur Stone, “The Procedure of Contemporary Railroad Reorganization,” American Economic Review, 9 (07 1919): 277–310Google Scholar; Albro Martin, “Railroads and the Equity Receivership”; Meade, Edward Sherwood, “The Reorganization of Railroads,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 17 (03 1901): 205–07Google Scholar. And, on the trust fund theory of the corporation more generally, see Horwitz, “Santa Clara Revisited,” 175.

29. Dewing, Arthur Stone, “The Theory of Railroad Reorganization,” American Economic Review 8 (12 1918): 780–84Google Scholar. For a short but excellent account of a pre-1880s reorganization (the Erie Railroad) see Daggett, Stuart, Railroad Reorganization (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1908), 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. On the shift in corporation law, more generally, from the trust-fund theory to a “natural entity” or “corporate personality” theory, see Horwitz, “Santa Clara Revisited.”

31. Unless otherwise cited, this story of the Wabash Railway comes from Grodinsky, Julius, Jay Gould, His Business Career (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

32. 29 Fed. Rep. 618, at 623 (1886).

33. See Exhibit C, “Report of the Purchasing Committee to Holders of the Bonds for the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry, East of the Mississippi, etc.,” and Exhibit, D, “Report of the Committee of Bondholders of the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry Co. (8/12/1886),” in Wabash Railroad Company Annual Report (1891)Google Scholar, appendixes.

34. See, for example, Josephson, Mathew, The Robber Barons (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1962), 192–215Google Scholar; and Charles Francis Adams, Jr. and Henry Adams, Chapters of Erie (1886; reprint, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1968).

35. Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., “Jay Gould and the Coming of Railroad Consolidation,” in Chandler and Tedlow, The Coming of Managerial Capitalism, 227–56.

36. On the role of the corporate bar in receivership practice, see Robert W. Gordon, “ Legal Thought and Legal Practice.” On the role of the corporate bar more generally in shaping the profession during this period, see Auerbach, Jerold, Unequal Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 14–73Google Scholar. And, on the more general turn to a natural entity or an administrative theory of the corporation, see Horwitz, “Santa Clara Revisited.”

37. Dewing, “The Theory of Railroad Receivership,” 784–88; Chamberlain, D. H., “New Fashioned Receiverships,” Harvard Law Review 10 (10 1896): 139–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, “Rail roads and Equity Receiverships,” Berle, “Receivership,” 50; Berk, “Corporations and Politics,” 144–56.

38. For a complete yearly accounting of the percentage of total railroad mileage in receivership from 1870 to 1897, see Swain, “Economic Aspects of Railroad Receiverships,” 68. See also Daggett, Railroad Reorganizations; Campbell, Edward G., The Reorganization of the American Railroad System 1893–1900 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938)Google Scholar.

39. Greenberg, Dolores Breitman, Financiers and Railroads, 1869–1889, A Case Study of Morton, Bliss and Company (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Carosso, Vincent P., Investment Banking in America: A History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Fritz Redlich, The Molding of American Banking: Men and Ideas (1947; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1968), 304–423.

40. Carosso, Vincent P., The Morgans, Private International Bankers, 1854–1913 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 121–23, 146–59, 238–42, 245Google Scholar.

41. Carosso, The Morgans, 246.

42. Carosso, The Morgans, 246–67.

43. On the competitive system building that led to this tripartite receivership, see Klein, Maury, The Great Richmond Terminal (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1970)Google Scholar; and Stover, John, The Railroads of the South, 1865–1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955), 233–53. On the southern reorganization, see Daggett, Railroad Reorganization, 146–91; Campbell, Reorganization of the American Railroad System, 149–62; and Carosso, The Morgans, 369–73Google Scholar.

44. On the Morgan reorganizations more generally, see Carosso, The Morgans, 352–90; Campbell, Reorganization of the American Railroad System, 145–89. On the court's procedure to secure consent from shareholders, see Cravath, Paul D., “The Reorganization of Corporations; Bondholders' Protective Committees; Reorganization Committees; and the Voluntary Recapitalization of Corporations,” in Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Some Legal Phases of Corporate Financing, Reorganization and Regulation (New York: Macmillan, 1917)Google Scholar; Gordon, “Legal Thought and Legal Practice,” 101–05; and Berk, ”Corporations and Politics,” 158–68.

45. During the 1890s, fixed charges (or debt) were reduced dramatically through receivership on the following major systems: the Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe, 53%; the Erie, 20%; the Denver and Rio Grande, 21%; the New York, Chicago and St. Louis, 36%; the Norfolk and Western, 30%; the Reading, 7%; the Georgia Central, 27%; the Oregon Railway and Navigation, 30%; the St. Louis and San Francisco, 7%; the Southwestern, 15%; the Colorado and Southern, 35%; and the East Tennessee, 24%. For a full accounting of railroad capital structures before and after receivership, see Poor's Railroad Manual, 1900, lxxi-cvi. See also Daggett, Railroad Reorganization, 342–43.

46. Dewing, Arthur Stone, “The Purposes Achieved by Railroad Reorganization,” American Economic Review 10 (06 1919): 277–310Google Scholar; Daggett, Railroad Reorganization, 334–86.

47. For a view that stresses the importance of the friendly receivership for smaller “less efficient” railroads, as well as large multiline systems, see Martin, “Railroads and the Equity Receivership.”

48. On the repatriation of American capital, see Williams Bogan, Investment Banking, 179.

49. Though Gould has been portrayed as a relentlessly offensive strategist, a recent biography by Maury Klein suggests that it is impossible to distinguish between offensive and degensive system buliding. For example, Klein shows how Gould tried to negotiate, unsucessfly, territorial settlements with his competitor. For the former view, see Chandler, “Jay Gould and the Coming of Railroad Consolidation.” For the latter, see Klein, Maury, The Life and Legend of Jay Gould (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

50. Bensen, Merchant, Farmers and Railroads; Purcell, “Ideas and Interests”; Martin, Enterprise Benied.

51. Buck, Solon, The Granger Movement (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Miller, George H., Railroads and the Granger Laws (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

52. Stickney, A. B., The Railway Problem (St. Paul, Minn.: D. D. Merrill, 1891)Google Scholar; Grant, H. Roger, The Corn Belt Route: History of the Chicago, Great Western Railroad Company (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984), 1–72Google Scholar.

53. In addition to Stickney, The Railway Problem, 89–113, on this point, see Buck, The Granger Movement, 232–38. For examples of contemporaries who, unlike Stickney, took management's plea at face value, see Adams, Charles Francis, “The Granger Movement,” North American Review 120 (04 1875): 394–424Google Scholar; Hadley, Arthur T., Railroad Transportation: Its History and Its Laws (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1886)Google Scholar; and McCurdy, Charles W., “Justice Field and the Jurisprudence of Government-Business Relations: Some Parameters of Laissez-faire Constitutionalism, 1863–1897,” Journal of American History 61 (03 1975): 970–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54. In addition to Stickney, The Railway Problem, 98–113, on the railroad counterattack and the Granger cases, see Miller, Railroads and the Granger Laws, 172–93; Buck, The Granger Movement, 206–38; Overton, Richard C., Burlington Route: A History of the Burlington Lines (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), 113–14Google Scholar; Warren, Charles, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston: Little, Brown, 1922)Google Scholar.

55. Haney, Lewis, A Congressional History of Railroads in the United States, 1850–1887 (New York: Augustus M. Kelly, 1968), 283–85Google Scholar; Proctor, Ben H., not Without Honor: The Life of John H. Reagan (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1962), 224Google Scholar; Buck, The Granger Movement, 214–16. On Senate support for the railroads, see Josephson, Mathew, The Politicos, 1865–1896 (1933; reprint, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966), 61–140Google Scholar.

56. On Standard Oil and the Hopkins bill, see Nash, Gerald D., “Origins of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887,” Pennsylvania History 24 (07 1957): 181–90Google Scholar.

57. Congressional Record, 44th Cong., 1st sess. (1876), 113.

58. Speech by Sen. James Wilson (R. Iowa), Congressional Record, 44th Cong., 1st sess., Appendix, 279.

59. Proctor, Not Without Honor, 225–40; Haney, Congressional History of Railways, 288–90; Hoogenboom, Ari and Hoogenboom, Olive, A History of the ICC: From Panacea to Palliative (New York: W. W. Norton 1976), 8–13Google Scholar.

60. Who Was Who in America, 1607–1896 (Chicago: A. N. Marquis, 1963).

61. Congress, U. S., Interstate Commerce Debate in 48th Cong., 2d sess. on the Bill (H. R. 5461) to Establish a Board of Commissioners of Interstate Commerce, and to Regulate Such Commerce [etc.], (Washington, D.C., 1884), 30Google Scholar. This volume will be cited as ICC Debate, 48th. On the 1866 legislation, see also Haney, Congressional History of Railways, 2:214–30.

62. Keller, Affairs of State; Hays, The Response to Industrialism; Weibe, The Search for Order; SamuelHays, “Political Parties and the Community-Society Continuum,”in Chambers, William N. and Burnham, Walter Dean, The American Party Systems: Stages of Development, 2d ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1979)Google Scholar.

63. Foner, Free Soil, 37.

64. ICC Debate, 48th, 97.

65. Ibid., 32.

66. Ibid., 209.

67. Stickney, The Railway Problem, 36–57.

68. ICC Debate, 48th, 31.

69. Ibid., 243.

70. Congress, Interstate Commerce Debate in 49th Cong. on the Bill to Establish a Board of Commissioners on Interstate Commerce, and to RegulateSuch Commerce [etc.], compiled by V. H. Painter (Washington, D.C., 1887), 27–28. This volume will be cited as ICC Debate, 49th.

71. ICC Debate, 49th, 453.

72. ICC Debate, 48th, 31.

73. Ibid., 37–38.

74. Ibid., 32.

75. Ibid., 103–05.

76. Ibid., 32.

77. Others in Congress expressed similar concerns. See, for example, ICC Debate, 49th, statements Senators Gorman (D. Md.), 108; Sherman (R. Ohio), 112; Longer (R. Mich.), 126; and Coke (D. Texas), 217; and ICC Debate, 48th, statements by Long (R. Mass.), 31; Congressman Anderson (R. Kans.), 53; Congressman Shively (D. Ind.), 72; and Senator Beck (D. Ky.), 243.

78. McCraw, Prophets of Regulation, 47–52; Testimony by Albert Fink before Congress in, ICC Debate, 48th, 274–85; Martin, “The Troubled Subject of Railroad Regulation,” 351–59.

79. The quotation is from Martin, “The Troubled Subject of Railroad Regulation,” 370. See also Skowronek, Building A New American State, 138–58; Nash, Gerald, “The Reformer Reformed: John H. Reagan and Railroad Regulation,” Business History Review 29(06 1955): 189–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Chandler, The Visible Hand, 144.

80. See speech by James Wilson, in ICC Debate, 49th, 23. For a similar critique of pooling by Stickney, see Grant, The Corn Belt Route, 20.

81. ICC Debate, 49th, 456–58.

82. Stickney, The Railway Problem, 54.

83. Quoted in Stickney, The Railway Problem, 124.

84. Ibid., 130.

85. Ibid., 131.

86. Proctor, Not Without Honor, 258; Haney, Congressional History of Railways, 293–98.

87. Skowronek, Building A New American State, 150–60; Martin, “The Troubled Subject of Railroad Regulation in the Gilded Age”; McCraw, Prophets of Regulation, 62.

88. Thomas Cooley was an appropriate first chairman for the ICC. As historian Alan Jones has written, his intellectual roots in Jacksonian democracy, as well as his antimonopoly bias, predisposed him to sympathy with the intent of the law. Moreover, as ICC chairman, he tried carefully to outline the obligations of both managers and shippers and to locate ground upon which they might cooperate. See Jones, Alan, “Thomas M. Cooley and the Interstate Commerce Commission: Continuity and Change in the Doctrine of Equal Rights,” Political Science Quarterly 81 (12 1966): 602–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jones, Alan, “Thomas M. Cooley and Laissez-faire Constitutionalism: A Reconsideration,” Journal of American History 53 (03 1967): 750–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89. ICC, Annual Report, (Washington, D.C., 1887), 78Google Scholar.

90. Ibid., 79.

91. ICC, Annual Report, 1888 (Washington, D.C., 1893), 13Google Scholar.

92. Quoted in Jones, “Thomas M. Cooley and the Interstate Commerce Commission,” 619.

93. ICC, Annual Report, 1890 (Washington, D.C., 1890), 47Google Scholar.

94. ICC, Annual Report, 1888, 17Google Scholar.

95. ICC, Annual Report, 1890, 38Google Scholar.

96. ICC, Annual Report, 1893, 33Google Scholar. See also Jones, “Thomas M. Cooley and the Interstate Commerce Commission,” 616–21 on Cooley's disappointment over management's failure to cooperate.

97. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alabama Midland Railway Co., 69 Fed. Rep. 176.

98. Quoted in Horwitz, “Santa Clara Revisited,” 196.

99. Gordon, “Legal Thought and Legal Practice in the Age of Enterprise.”

100. ICC, Annual Report, 1897 (Washington, D.C., 1897), 42Google Scholar.

101. Ibid.

102. ICC v. Alabama Midland Railway Co., 69 Fed. Rep. 176–77.

103. ICC, Annual Report, 1898 (Washington, D.C., 1898), 16Google Scholar.

104. Ibid., 20.

105. Chandler and Tedlow, The Coming of Managerial Capitalism, 278; Chandler, The Visible Hand, 173–74; Moody, John, The Truth about the Trusts (New York: Moody, 1904), 431–50Google Scholar.

106. Berk, “Corporations and Politics,” 222–64; Lawrence Goodwyn, Democratic Promise; Hattam, “Economic Visions andPolitical Strategies”; Destler, “The InfluenceofEdward Kellogg upon American Radicalism, 1865–1896.”

107. Berk, “Corporations and Politics,” 273–321; Martin, Enterprise Denied.

108. Regulation of Railway Rates and Services. Relation of Government to Commerce and Transportation. Speeches of Hon. Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin in the Senate of the United States, 20 April, 1906 (Washington, D.C., 1906), 54–55.

109. See, for example, Fink, Leon, Workingmen's Democracy: The Knights of Labor and American Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Nugent, Walter T. K., Money and American Society,1865–1880 (New York: Free Press, 1968)Google Scholar; AlanDawley, , Class and Community:The Industrial Revolution in Lynn (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Richard Oestreicher, “Terrence Powderly.”

110. Skowronek, Building a New American State; SkocpolandIkenberry,“ThePolitical Formation of the American Welfare State”; Keller, Affairs of State; McCraw, Prophets of Regulation, 80–142. See also the essays on the twentieth century in Weir, Margaret, Orloff, Ann Shola, and ThedaSkocpol, , The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

111. On this project, more generally, see linger, Social Theory: Its Situation andIts Task.