The sun., 1907-08-22

have Rivon or recNivNd the m ma slrnoVv,n slx
Nobody knows beeter than the Secretary
that this word 'knowlngly" makes q radical
difference IN the testimony necessary TO con.
vict.
To illustrate: In the standard on case
mentioned the company ss q shipper was
Oonv vscted on I,te1 counts each count repre-
ssnting Q carload shipment Of oil over the
Alton road from whiting Ind, to East st.
Louis
The defence In part Of the Standard Oil
Company was that there were three roads
over which II could ship from whiting to
East 81. Louis and that it miaht have shippett
all its oil over either Of the two other roads
at the same rate IL was charged by the Alton
and that II derived no benefit by shipping
over the Alton instead Of the other roads;
that before shipping over the Alton IL was
told by the traffic manager Of the Alton, who
solicited its business. chat the Alton had filed
with the Interstate Commerce Commission
and had published az its ofacial rate the same
rate that IL charged, which was the same rate
that the other two roads CHARGED, both Of
which roads had In fact filed and published
that rate.
The Standard OIL Company claimed that IL
had no knowledge'of the fact that the Alton
road had not duly fled and published the rate
II charged. but supposed. and claimed that 1t
had a right to suppose. In view OF what was told
IL by Its trsffic manager. and In view Of the
fact that the other roads were charging the
same rate, that II was paying the Alton a
lawful rate. IL offered to prove all this, but
the prosecution being under the Elkins law
as we enacted II In 1903. and not under the
Elknis law rs IL stands to-day, the Court ruled
that the Standard Oil Company was bound
TO know what the lawful rate was the same
AS IL was bound to know any other law, for a
rate duly established In but u law, and there
fore refused all testimony tending to show
haf ~. Sc. .~l u L.
that IL was receiving the benefit OF a rate
that had not been lawfully established.
~ the prosecution had been under the
Eiktns law. as u now STANDS. TINS testimony
Nouio clearly have been competent. and II
had been sufficient to satisfy the jury
here could not have been any con yiction In
the first place. and in the second place there
could not have been a tne of SO, 100000. In
other words. the Government will in due
time ma mat the Eikins law as " was amended
by the rate bill has been weakened and not
strengthened. Tor as TO all onences since the
passage Oh tne hepnurh law there cannot
be nne, forfeiture or imprisonment. except
only IN cases where the Offences nave been
knowingly committed.
The Secretary also seeks TO create the I'M
precision that the railroads nntediy opposed
the passage OF the Hepburn Rate Law and
that they spent large amount OF money
and made great efforts 10 defeat tt.
! am not Informed on this point except
by what was common report az the time
and by what ] saw IN the newspapers, but II
my recollection he not at fault the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad. the New York. New Haven
and Hartford Railroad and nerbans n Num-
- :, -. ..I,rasI. r.n,>s. ur.. go. 81.
WI '" "'ne' 'a"oaus ""'e' un.e N'oee 'ue
heart and centre of the population ana the
business Of the country. did not oppose the
Uepburn rate law bu on the contrary
s.a.a, =,
''No'tu IT.
'mting on passes was alone worth miions
10 the railroads Positive prohibition Of re-
hates and determinations was worth still
a,hor ,,;llions
S.,.,o. r.,.,,,o. d. ,,,.,,;. -, m
.idrnas gaI;,.orsS ao,,ar,I ,,s. rs aa, u wh;nh
be saTe warn;ng ,bai SnT The Goyernment
-, Snaor,aha Is rar"is,inn y. ern,';dad
10 Mar ,1,s 'sSd'un S,iS ur as pns,s;eu
ia J'S S;s,ri's, cnn,;n,,n,, ~ said
anu ''e''"o' .o"''nuns "e ea'u
The warning thus given was not Needed. and