The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1907-01-03
DEMURRERS OF
STANDARD OIL
CO. OVERRULEO


United States district court today over
ruled the demurrer TO eight indictments
against the Standard oil company for ac-
cepting rebates from railroad companies.
As 10 two others. the demurrer was
sustained on account Of technical defects
In the indictments.
These prosecutions" said the court.
"are for alleged violations OF Section one
OF the act approved Feb 10, 1903, known as
the Elkins law. The charge is that the
defendant obtained the transportation OF
its property by various railway companies
at rates less than those named in the car
riers published schedules"
The court ruled against the defendants
contention that the Elkins act was really
to prevent the employment Of Indirect
methods to obtain preferential rates ana
also that the provisions OF the Elkins
law requiring shippers to adhere to
published rate was void as being against
that provision OF the interstate commerce
law which required carriers to transport
nronerty for a reasonable rate, the court
holding that carriers and shippers We're
hoth REQUIRED to adhere to the published
rate until such rate was publicly chahgeu
The court further ruled against the de-
PENDANTS contention that the indtctments
were bad because the Interstate COM
merce law did not require railway COM
panies to publish rates between polhts
bcyond the carriers own line OF roao'
holding that the requirement or the Jaw
applied with the same force that II applied
to q point on the carriers own line.
The court ruled against the defendants
contention that the provision OF the inter
state commerce law requiring carriers 10
publish terminal rates was not operative
upon consignees. The terminal charges
In question consisted OF storage charges
that would accrue on petroleum conslsheu
TO the Standard oil company.
"It is contended in behalf OF the United
states said the court that the act ot
June o. 1903. did not so into effect untll
after these indictments were returned IL
is urged that the postponement was et-
fected by the adoption OF the joint reso-
luton by congress- approved June 30 1896.
That resolution provides that the late
law shall take effect and be I'm force ~
DAYS after it's approval by the president
OF the United States
''Of course, the purpose OF this resoin-
ton Is obvious. But 1t was wholly inef-
fective until approved by the president.
This occurred June 30. And. by It's own
terms the act became effective on It's
approval by the president one day before.
Plainly therefore. on June %, the resolu-
tion was powerless to postpone that which
had already occurred on June 29. While
possibly on June 81. the resolution might
operate TO suspend the act for period
of time land as to this I express no opin-
ion) the question presented by the demur-
rers TO these Indictments are TO be deter
mined as though postponement or sus-
pension OF the act had not been attempt
ed"
ho 4, Ia
repealed by the rate law and that unless
there was a statute keeping alive for fu-
ture prosecution offenses which had been
committed against the Elkins law prior
10 it's repeal. the court quoted section Is
of the Revised Statutes of the United
States enacted IN 1871.
This law, said the court. has been
attacked here as an unwarranted attempt
by the congress that enacted IL 10 curta,l
the authority OF succeeding congresses.
by limiting in advance the effect to be
given their enactments.
ut is the duty of the court" said Judge
Lands. Ito enforce the will Of congress
as expressed In the written enactment.
''ln the ascertainment OF that will. am
not at liberty to ignore the ultimate OBJ
ject OF the law. That object was the
tablishment of uniform railroad rates.
reasonable in amount. The former law
had failed to accomplish this and was
therefore strengthened Instead OF being
wiped off the books az having served its
purpose additional and severe liabilities
were created and more drastic remedies
and penalties authorized For the offensc
with which the defendant stands charged
the preceding Ell<ins law prescribed pun
ishment only by fine. The view entertain
ed by the present congress respecting this
offence finds expression in the provision
authorizing the additional penalty OF ira
prisonment I'm the penitentiary. And the
court is asked to hold that this same con-
gress deliberately intended to pardon all
unindicted prior offenders. whose conduct
II was more than all other causes com.
bined, that moved congress 20 enact the
rigid and far-reachins measure OF June
90
MY opinion is that the so-called saw
ing clause in section TO- was inserted for
the sole purpose of definitely prescribing
the rule OF procedure that should control
the prosecution OF causes then pending in
various states I'm the courts. thus avoiding
the confusion and controversy which this
experience has shown, must otherwise
have resulted"
The court overruled the demurrer to
eight OF the indictments and sustained
IL as to two on technical grounds.