Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-01-03
Judge Lands Rules Against it on
Eight indictments and
For it on Two.
LATTER SIMPLY TECHNICAL.
Charges Against Company Are Viola
ton of Section 1 of the Ell
kins Law,

Chicago, Jan S.-Judge Lands in the
United States district court. today over
ruled the demurrer OF the Standard Oil
company to eight indictments pending
against that corporation. but sustained
the demurrer as to two other indict
ments because of technical defects.
These productions" said the court,
are for illeged violations of section / 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 COM
pauies at rates less than those named
| in the carriers published schedules,
| The offenses are alleged To have been
| committed prior TO the enactment OF
| the law approved June 20, 1906, known
as the rate law The indictments were
| returned Aug. 81 1906"
COURTS RULINGS.
The court ruled against the defend
| ants contention that the l2lkins law
| was enacted really to prohibit the en-
| ployment OF indirect methods 10 obtain
| preferential rates, 1t being the defend
| ants contention that IL was not n vio-
lation of the law il a railway company
| dealing directly with a shipper, gave
| that shipper a cut rate,
The court also ruled against the de-
| fendant's claim that the provision of
| the Elkins law required shippers TO ad-
| here to a published rate was void as be-
| ing against that provision of the inter
| state commerce law which required car
| riers to transport property for reason
able rate, the court holding that car
| riers and shippers were both required
TO adhere to the published rate until
| such rate was publicly changed in the
| ma no.. IaA t.Ny 10 NJ
The court further ruled against the
defendants contention that the indict-
| ments 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 transportation of property
| beyond LIS own lines. should thereupon
| publish rates for the transportation of
| property between such points, the car
rier must therefore be held as to the
| shipping public 10 have facilities for
| the transportation of property to such
| points beyond itA own line and that the
| requirement of the law applied to such
a case with the same force that 1t APP
piled to point on the carriers own
line.
The court ruled against the defend
| ants contention that the provision of
| the interstate commerce law requiring
| carriers to publish terminal charges
was not operative upon consignees
| holding that In respect to such terminal
| charges, inasmuch as the consignor
would have but little If any interest in
the question, the law plainly was in
tended to be binding on consignees. The
| terminal charges In question consisted
| of large amounts of storage charges
that had accrued on petroleum con-
signed to the Standard OIL company at
! Chicago and which the indictment
| charges the Lake Shore and Michigan
| and released to the Standard Oil COM
| pany rebate in respect of the trans
portation of the petroleum.
CONTENTION OF THE U. S.
1T is contended in behalf of the Unit
ed States" said the court, that the act
of juno 80, 1906. did not go into effect
| until after these indictments were re-
| turned. 1t is urged that the postpone
| ment was effected by the adoption of
the joint resolution by Congress, APP
proved June 30, 1906. That resolution
provides that the rate law shall take
effect and be in force 60 days after its
| approval by the president of the United
| States.
"Of course, the purpose OF this
resolution Is obvious But IT was
wholly ineffective until approved by
/ the president. This occurred on June
| 80 And, by its own terms. the act
| became effective on It's approval by
| the president one day before. Plain
| ly, therefore. on June 80, the resolu-
ton was powerless TO postpone that
! which had already occurred on June
20 While possibly on June 80. the
| resolution might operate to suspend
the act for period of time, (and as
| to this / express no opinion), the
questions presented by the demurrars
to these indictments are TO he de-
termined as II a postponement or
suspension of the act had not been
attempted"
After observing that the Elkins
| laws was repealed by the rate law
and that, unless there was a statute
keeping alive for future prosecution
| offenses which had been committed
against the lslkins law prior to its
| appeal, the court quoted section 10
OF the revised statutes OF the United
States enacted in 1871.
THE repeal of any statute shall
not have the fleet to release or ex-
tinguish any penalty, for forfeiture or
| liability incurred under such statute
unless the repeating act shall so ex-
! pressly provide, and such statute shall
be treated as still remaining IN force
for the purpose of sustaining any pro-
per action or prosecution for the
enforcement Of such penalty, for
fixture liability.
LAW ATTACKED
This law" said the court, has been
| attacked here as an unwarranted at
tempt by the Congress that enacted IL
TO curtail the authority of succeeding
Congresses by limiting in advance the
effect 10 be given TO their enactments
Now. under our Constitution. each Con
gress ig the equal, In point of power
OF any predecessor or Successor. There
fore no Congress has authority 10 draw
IN the boundaries of the legislative do.
main 10 the embarrassment OF any other
| Congress. But as read section 49, this
IL not attempted. II is rather the sub
stitutlon OF new rule to be observed
by the courts I'm the construction OF
statutes thereafter TO be enacted. II
seems TO me that such new rule is no
more an impairment OF the legislative
power OF succeeding Congresses than
was the previously existing common
law rule an impairment OF the power OF
preceding Congresses, That Congress
had the constitutional power TO mako
the change Is plain That any sue
oeeding Congress may nbroRate the new
rule and restore the old rule is equally
plain That, until such old rule Is re-
/ ..,h ateraa1Iup Tanrrnag IN,