The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-07

by him against the carrier. for example, by false representation of the contents of a package.
 As to the first the courts have held that to constitute unjust discrimination. it is necessary to prove that at the time the lower and unlawful rate was being granted to the favored shipper, the high and lawful rate was imposed against another shipper on Ike commodities be- tween the same points.
 Tn many cases of departure by a car rier from It's published tariffs. the favored shipper has enjoyed his advantage for So long @ time that ali rivals has disap- peared. In such cases. and they are the most numerous, no illegal discrimination exists. consequently the recipient of the unlawful reoates escapes the penalties of the act to regulate commerce.
 'The act prohi oits the carrier from charging any one a greater or less rate than the rates named Tn its schedules; but the penalties provided therefor have been held by the courts to be applicable to any carrier that is an incorporated company.
 The officers or agents of such incor- porated company. who grant the rebate or make the unlawful concession in rates, are subject to indictment and punish ment. That. however. is generally an im- practicable remedy. because the agent who makes the concession Is usually the only person by whom 1t can be ascer- tained that the rebate has been paid, and when he has testified in relation to the matter he has thereby obtained amnesty from prosecution.
 Even if the corporation and its off cers could be effectivtly reached by crim- Inal proceedings, the law leaves unre- strained the persons. corporations and combinations who are beneficiaries of the unlawful rebates.
 The Casus 0missus.
 This casus omissus of the act to regu- late commerce should be supplied by i'm posing penalty upon the incorporated carrier and beneficiary alike. and the right Of the courts to restrain such prac- tices to the suit of the United States, a right not settled and now vigorously challenged. should be made certain.
 'T think the operation of such an act should be limited to the transportation by common carriers subject to the act to regulate commerce. This is necessary tor the reason that there is no requirement of law that rates shall be published oy common carriers except by railroad or railroad and water carriers, acting as one line. When the act to regulate commerce
  lmpractieable if not unwise to attempt to regulate the rates of water or other com. mon carriers. 1t was understood that in the nature of things, water rates could not be stable.
 50 tat if provision Is made by law to prevent rebates, a standard or estab- lished schedule must be resorted. to and the admitted abuse of greatest magni- tJ1de has been in the favors granted by railroad companies their rates, which the law requires shall be made public, should he taken as the rates which will be ad- hered to and made equal to all the peo- nie under similar conditions.
 sTt should therefore be made unlawful to transport trafac by carriers. subject to transoort traffic by carriers. subject to the act to regulate commerce, at any rate less than carriers published rate. and all who participate in the violation of such law should be punished
 "An additional provision should be made to railway corporations. combina- tions and associations which produce and manufacture wholly within State, biii whose products of sales enter into inter- state commerce. It should relate. first to such concerns as fatten on rebates in transportation and second, to concerns which sell below the general price oi commodity in particular localities, or oth- erwise in particular localities wantonly seek to destroy competition. fnese could he excluded with their commodities. pro- ducts or manufactures from crossing state lines.