New-York tribune., 1907-08-04
NEw.yORK DAILY TRIBUNE SUNDAY. AUGUST A. 1907

make criminal the defendants act in accepting
from the carrier a less rate than that puoisheo
and filed by the carrier. as required oy Jaw .,, Ia
the courts view the only point fnvolVeo IN tNIS
proposition is whether Congress has authorlty 70
require that railroad rates shall be unlIoELIl 4. -
being now settled that Congress has TINS po"ei, -
necessarily follows that 70 preserve uniformity that
body may prohibit the doing OF any act Ui ,ltils
whatever by any person or corporatloh az , 90
to impair uniformity and may enforce SUCH @ pio
hbitons by penal provisions as congress iii'S
deem requisite.
INTER AND INTRA STATE ThAfF ~
The defendant maintains that the interStdle COlit
nerce law does no. arply to the Alton cohlPan. ..
connection with the transportation of defendant
property, nasmuch as the roau II ~ roo is
rbnIry within the State of Illinois Inc lheOLS -
that the mani bv the Chicago Terminal from Whlt,
ing across the Illinois line TO thappeil anu e. INC -i r
by the ST Louis Terminal from , rh - inter
across the Missouri line TO ST LOUIS are eiI -.
state and therefore subject to federal co!I'o, ~ puo
that the Alton companys lntrasst-'e ~. oi,ie ;s
same property from ChappeA 10 Eds t RI ISL
hevord the reach Of federal authority Inc uoupie
with this contention is that II ignores 'iiS -
rronosftio underlying the whole question ana con
f.5es the. futrastate character OF tl" caI
tie interstate character of the commerce III N.lo
the carrier is engaged. The true ana pllin'LS -
is whether the commodity TO be trallSpoISVu -
pass from state into another ~ ~stdte, diess - ~
so mass then il Is interstate commerce. lo7e' -
whether the rails over whcn u liIe I mis- com
ated bv one or many carriers. Ana "iIe @. I'll L's
modify begins 10 move interstate commerce ne"
begun and interstate commerce IL co'l ,lJs ~
until il reaches destination. II in suci con , -,
~ +here ba = road living wholly within county
in n state. the carrier operating SUCH go 80 -
enoc+ to the movement of that COMMODITY Is en-
| raqed in interstate commerce as clearly do II ~"
linz extended from the origin to the ueSt'Lid H -
of the shipment, and is therefore as to SUI ~
nortation subject federal .controi. 10 aP +ha+
i POI tnnded for bv the defendant namely tnat
Congress may prescribe the rate WIC' with 70
| noent must pay for the moNcHleii1 a. r,,ie :, nd
:thaP!'e Iaisiot,re of Illinois may prescribe lue
ratn efectiye on the link connecting .S,5i,,r
| ands of the route travelled by the ~! 80 -
ITO q
| tice as il is illogical in theory .,,o+ tho evi-
II was insisted by the defendant tialp+ tial M ba
.-',a 5;d NOT show any common arrange ~
traen the Chicago & Alton and the Chcaso It,4+i,e
rompanics for a continuous cal tidse :-at,+y,ant
- East St Louis as charged in the tI.I -
~, 1.idanca did show the filing and pupiiCd'1o
.t +.,iff schedule of the Chicago Alton anu @
Chicago Terminal companies, - 5s cent rate
from Whiting to East s. LOUIS me ,,i,ica 90 East
| show, l,v the tariff "A to be the ohlC..so oe
| ST Louis rate Furthermore, these .inr tWo eoh og
| maintained a joint agency at Tue .ir ~ the
+hai- roade at Chappel for the TRANSACTION VI ~
| bnsness of both that point wnlch cu-t;ti,,c
iarpaIy Of the Standard Oil traffic from y, I' i
ID Ia 60 go g ToJis In addition to this. the evl-
| dence shows the movement OF detehuaHl ary
~ tba chicago Terminal Company. that coipaIIS
~ I,ir, - the defendant for its compensation
h1,t raII.inC SOLELY upon the Alton company lhTI1
put ~ boIa course of business from the publ
carton and fling Of the joint schedule TO tne paS
| n3ente of the freight charges concIusNey S-o"S
that these two companies were operating uHet a. q
common arrangement for the tahspoi ''''o' u ~
| property
| RATES TO CHAPPELL
The defendant also contends that lnaSsi.uvit
the name "Chappell" does not appear on @ te ~ ~,
- thara WAS no lawful rate between thappeIL anu
| 81 Louis The evidence does show, however I'M nm
tariff a named the rate to East ST l-oulS ltot-
Chicago and suburban stations WITHIN the S!,.v1s ~
| sxi.rtins, district including the station imrne-
| diately beyond Chappell from Chcago. -hoIeoNtI
| on the face of the on-Chcago Iet]nlIat ] Jote @
| schedule appeared the foIlo"lhs. -
strictly prohibited from quoting or using LLIsneI
! over the same line in the same direction lht
| shorter being entirely included within the longer
distance" This would seem to clearly eNhiblt tlie
rate from ChappeIl. Certainly II "ouid he tii'pis
! and to no extent misleading notification 70 any
shipper consulting the schedule in Good Iailh 10
! learn the lawful rate. , -
sustain the charge in the Indictment that the Alton
company engaged in the tTahsIoEl El4,loh % %
property from Chappen to St LOUIS, ana tHat u
had published and filed tariff schedules showing tAe
rate In force between sad points TO be 1872 cents
As before observed, the Alton company puoIs"ed
and filed Tariff a. showing rate or % Sci''S 4'I.
Chappeu 10 East st. Louis The evidence ans.
shows that the Alton company procured copies "'
the tariff schedules OF the St Louis Ieriilina ON
many showing its rate TO be II cents from last
St Louis TO ST. Louis, and hled these schedn'ts i!
its own name with the Interstate Commerce Com
mission distributing the its freight agents
where they kept for the use OF the genera
shipping public. Having thus published ana i''u
the rate covering the entire route. and having
actually to 1t that the property T'''h'i ~
St Louis destination. its general charter powers
authorized do and AZ the defendant looked /"
II TO 90. and paid il for doing the court j. "i ''s
| onirior that IN. evidence clearly shows tHat IN"
Alton company Was possessed of a railroad route
from ChappclI TO 81. Louis over "hi'h u hid '@-
( tablished rate for the irahSppIla'''" "l on a.
I required by law.
II carrier enters the field for traffic destined 70
points beyond its line. and shipper turns his
property 50 destined 20 il. such transportation
is as clearly subject TO the require tnents or the
Interstate Commerce law as would ne the cas-" II
the carrier owned and operated the line through I"
destination.
In the absence Of a formal agreement establishing
a foint through rate effective over a through route
made m of the connecting lines Of more than on"
carrier the lawful rate IN force such through
route is the sum the local rates lawfully estah-
lished by several connecting carriers over tAer
respective roads.
COMPANIES had no joint through agreement. as at
their election under the law they might have had
However It would be wholly inadnIssible to hold
that interstate traffic handled by thehl was
immune from federal regulation merely because Of
this omission.
RATES on OTHER ROADS
The defendant offered certain tariff schedules
tending 10 show that during the period covered by
the indictment there in force by the Chicago
& Eastern Illinois Railroad from Whiting 10 East
81 Louis rate oil of 6l4 cents, which. IT was
claimed owing to certain terminal charges at East
ST Louis which the Alton traffic was subjected,
was equal the six-cent rate via the latter route
This evidence offered 10 establish an absence
Of motive on the part of the defendant 70 accept
an unlawful rate from the Alton but excluded
bv the court a not being admissible on the ques-
ton Of the defendants guilt or innocence IN &C
cppting the unlawful from the Alton com
pany the announcing that If 1t should sub
seouentIv appear that there in force such
omen published. filed rate via the Chicago d East
ern Illinois Railroad available to the general pub
lie, that fact would be considered by the court IN
mitigation OF the punishment. Motive Is not ma
terIaI in n case where the proof Is clear that II
was the defendant who committed the crime Mo
tive may be inquired into when necessary to de-