The San Francisco call., 1907-01-04
OIL COMPANY MUST
STAND TRIAL
Indictments Under Elkins
Law Of the Rockefeller
Concern Are, Held Valid
ACCEPTED REBATES

CHICAGO. Jan. 3.--Judge Lands of
the United States District Court over
ruled the demurrer of the Standard
Oil Company today to eight Indictments
pending against that corporation. but
sustained the demurrer as to two
other indictments because of techni-
Rcal defects. The prosecutions are for
alleged violations of section ] of the
act approved February 10. 1903, known
as the Elkins law. The charge is that
the defendant obtained the transporta-
tion of it's property by various railway
companies al rates less than those
named in the carriers published sched-
ules.
The court ruled against the defend
ants contention that the Elkins law
was enacted really to prohibit the
employment OF indirect methods to OBJ
| tain preferential rates. it being the
defendants contention that 1t was not
violation of the law If a railway
company, dealing directly with a ship
per- gave that shipper cut rate.
The court also ruled against the de-
fendant's claim that the provision of
the EIkins law requiring shippers to
adhere to a published rate was void.
as being opposed to the provision of
the Interstate commerce law. which
required carriers to transport prop
erty for reasonable rate. The court
held that carriers and shippers were
both required to adhere to the pub
lished rate until such rate was pub
IicIy cAanged in the manner provided
by law.
BOUND BY REPRESENTATIONS
The court further ruled against the
defendants contention that the in
dictments were bad because the inter-
state commerce law did not require
railway companies to publish rates
between points beyond the carriers
own line of road Judge Lands held
that if a carrier. having made an ar
rangement with connecting lines for
! the transportation of property beyond
its own line. should thereupon publish
rates for the transportation of prop
erty between such points, the carrier
must therefore be held as TO the ship
ping public to have facilities for the
trans sportation of property to such
points beyond its own line. and that
the requirement of the law applied
to such a case with the same force
that it applied to point on the car
rier'S own line.
The court ruled against the defend
ants contention that the provision of
the interstate commerce law requir-
ing carriers to publish terminal
charges was not operative upon the
consignee, holding that in respect to
such terminal charges, inasmuch as
! the consignor would have but little il
any interest in the ques ion, the law
plainly was intended 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
and Michigan Southern Railroad Com
| pany Cancelled and released to the
Standard Oil Company, thus giving it
rebate in respect to the transporta
tion of the petroleum.
REPEAL NOT A PARDON
After observing that the Elkins law
was repealed by the rate law and that,
unless there was a statute keeping
which had been committed against the
Ellxins law prior TO its repeal, the
court quoted section 13 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, enacted
in 1871, as follows:
The repeal OF any statute shall not have the
eset to release or ennsSisn any e peensty
ute unless the repeating act shall so expressly
provide. and for the purpose of sustaining any
of such a penalty, forfeiture or liability.
1t is the duty OF the court to enforce the will
actment In the entertainment of that viii /
am not at liberty to ignore the ultimate object
/ of the law. The object the establishment
of uniform railroad rates. reasonable In amount.
The former law had failed to accomplish this.
and was. therefore, strengthened. Instead Of
being wiped of the books having served it's
purpose, additional and severe liabilities were
created and more drastic remedies and pen
altes authorized
For the ofense with which the defendant
stands charged. the preceding Elkins law pre-
scribed punishment only by fine. The view
entertained by the present Congress respecting
this ofense finds expression In the provision
authorizing the additional penalty of imprison-
ment in the penitentiary. And the court is
asked to hold that this same Congress delfb-
erately intended to pardon all unIndicted prior
offenders, whose conduct II was, more than all
other causes combined, that moved Congress to
enact the rigid and far-reaching measure of