Omaha daily bee., 1907-01-04
OIL COMBINE LOSES
Judge Lands 0vsrrules Dsmurrers to Eight
Indictments Charging Relating.
UNUSUAL POINTS RAISED BY ATTORNEYS
Contention That Direct Cutting Of Rates
is Not Prohibited is 0vsrruled.
REPEAL OF ELKlNS LAW ALSO ALLEGED
court Finds That 1t Was Still Effective
When Bills We're Returned
TWO INDICTMENTS ARE RULED OUT
These Are Found 10 he Technically
Defective-On Company Must
Go TO Trial the
Others.
REPEAL OF ELKINs LAW ALSO ALLEGED
sOurt Finds That 1t Was Still Effective
When Bills We're Returned.
TWO INDICTMENTS ARE RULED OUT

United States district court today owe.
ruled the demurrer OF the Standard OIL
company to eight indictments pending
against that corporation, but sustained the
demurrer as to two other indictments be-
cause of technical defects.
These prosecutions" said the court, "are
for alleged violations of section / of the
act approved February 49, 1903 known as
the Elkins law The charge is that the
defendant obtained the transportation OF
its property by various railroad companies
at rates less than those named In the car
r!ers' published schedules. The offenses
are alleged to have been committed prior
TO the Enactment OF law approved June
%. 1905. known as the rate law. The in
dictments were returned August q, 1906"
The court ruled against the defendants
contention that the Elkins law was enacted
really to prohibit the employment of In
direct methods to obtain preferential rates,
II being the defendants contention that it
was not violation of the law IL a railroad
company dealing directly with a shipper
gave that shipper cut rate
The court also ruled against the de-
PENDANTS claim that the provision of the
Elkins law requiring shippers to adhere
10 a published rate was void as being
against that provision OF the interstate
commerce law which required carriers to
the court holding that carriers and shippers
were both required TO adhere to the pub
lshed rate until such rate was publicly
changed IN the manner provided by law.
Carrier Bound by Acts.
The court further ruled against the de-
fendant's contention that the indictments
were bad because the Interstate commerce
law did not require railway companies to
publish rates between points beyond the
carriers own line OF road, holding that If
a carrier, having made an arrangement
with connecting lines for the transporta-
tion of property beyond its own line, should
thereupon publish rates for the transporta-
tion OF property between such points, the
carrier must therefore be held to the
shipping public to have facilities for the
transportation Of property to such points
beyond les own line. and that the require
faent OF the law applied to such case
with the same force that 1t applied to a
point on carriers own line.
The court ruled against the defendants
contention that the provision of the inter
state commerce law requiring carriers TO
publish terminal charges was not operative
upon consignees. holding that in respect to
ouch terminal charges, inasmuch the
Psnsignsr would have little If any interest
IN the question. The law was plainly in
tended to be binding on consignees The
terminal charges In question consisted OF
large amounts of storage charges that had
accrued on petroleum consigned to the
Standard oil company at Chicago, and
which the indictment charges the Lake
Shore & Michigan Southern Railway COM
pany cancelled and released TO the Stand
ard Oil company. thus giving the Standard
oil company rebate in respect TO the
transportation of petroleum.
Eject of Latest Act.
''It is contended in behalf of the United
States" said the court that the act OF
June 49, 1906 did not go into effect until
after these indictments were returned. II
is urged that the postponement was effected
by the adoption OF the joint resolution by
congress, approved June So 1906. That reso-
luton provides that the rate law shall
take effect and be In force sixty days after
its approval by the president of the United
States.
"Of course. the purpose of this resolu-
tlon is obvious But it was wholly inef-
fectlve until approved by the president
This was done on June 80, and by its own
terms the act became effective on its ap-
proval by the president one day before
Plainly, therefore, on June 30 the resolu-
tlon was powerless TO postpone that which
had already occurred on June 2e. While
possibly on June 80 the resolution might
operate to suspend the act for a perioA OF
time (and as to this express no opinion)
the question presented by the demurrers
TO these indictments TO be determined
as If a postpOnement or suspension OF the
act had not been attempted"
After observing that the Elkins law was
repealed by the rate law and that. unless
there was a statute keeping alive for future
prosecution ofenses which had been COM
mitted against the Elkins law prior to its
appeal, the court quoted section IS OF tbs
revised statutes Of the United States, en-
acted In lS1,
The repeal OF any statute shall not hav,
the effect 90 release or extingulsh any
der such statute unless the repeating ac
shall so expressly provide, and such statute
for the purpose OF sustaining any proper
action or prosecution for the enforcement
OF such penalty, forfeiture or liability
Intention of Congress.
's'rhis law" said the court "has been at
tackled here as an unwarranted attempt b.
the congress that enacted IL TO curtai thi
authority Of succeeding congresses by lin
iting In advance the effect to be given [,
their enactments. Now under our consti
tuition each congress Is the equal in poin
OF power OF any predecessor or successor
Therefore no congress has authority Z,
draw in the boundaries OF the legislativ,
domain to the embarrassment OF an,
other congress. But as l read section 1
this Is not attempted. il is rather the sub
stitution OF a new rule TO be observed b,
the courts In the construction Of statute
thereafter TO be enacted, II seems 70 M
that such new rule IS no more an impair
ment of the legislative power OF such pre-
ceding congresses. That congress had tn
power to make the change is plain Tha
any succeeding congress may Rbrogate IN
new rule and restore the old rule is equal,
plain. That until such old rule IS restore,
each succeeding congress intends that tn
courts shall be guided by the new rule Il
giving effect TO their enactments seems 4
me beyond question:
II Is the duty Of the court" said Judg
bands. TO enforce the win Of congress a
fcoatlnued on second PaeeA