Los Angeles herald., 1907-01-04
COURT SUSTAINS
ANT|-REBATE LAW
Standard oIrs Demurrer to Indlet-
ments for Violating the Elklns Law
overruled In Opinion Review
ing Legal Points Involved
BY Associated Press.


overruled the demurrer of the stand
ard Oil company to eight indictments
pending against that corporation, but
sustained the demurrer as to two Other
indictments because of technical de.
fects.
These prosecutions" the court said,
ARE for alleged violations of section
I of the act approved February 10, 1903
known as the Elltlns law. The charge
is that the defendant obtained tbs
transportation of its property by vari-
Gus railway companies at rates less
than those named in the carriers pub
lished schedules"
The court ruled against the defend
ants contention that the Elkins law
was enacted really to prohibit the EN-
ployment of indirect methods to obtain
preferential rates. 1t being the de-
| defendants contention that it was not
q violation of the law IL a railway
company dealing directly with the
shipper, gave that shipper n cut rate.
The court also ruled against the de-
fendant's claim that the provision y:
the Elkins law requiring shippers tC
adhere to published rate was void, as
being against the provision of the In
terstate commerce law which required
carriers to transport property for q
reasonable rate. The court held that
quired to adhere to the published rate
until such rate was publicly changed in
the manner provided by law.
Rules lndictmnets Are Not Bad
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 be-
tween points beyond the carriers own
line of road, holding that if carrier
| having made an arrangement with
| connecting lines for the transportation
of property beyond it's own line, should
| thereupon publish rates for the trans
portation of property between such
points, the carrier must therefore be
held as to the shipping public to have
| facilities for the transportation OF
property to such points beyond it's own
line and that the requirement of the
law applied to such a case with the
same force that 1t applied to a 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 consgnor
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
consigned to the Standard Oil company
at Chicago and which the Indictment
charges the Lake Shore & Michigan
Southern Railroad company Cancelled
and released to the Standard Oil COM
pany, thus giving the Standard OH
company a rebate in respect of the
transportation of the petroleum.
"It is contended in behalf of the
United States" said the court, that
the act of June 20, 1906, did not go into
effect until after these indictments wei
returned. 1t is urged that the post
ponement was effected by the adoption
of the joint resolution by congress, ap-
proved June 80, 1906. That resolution
provides that the rate law shall take
effect and be in force sixty days after
its approval by the president of the
United States
Purpose Of Resolution Plain
"Of course, the purpose of this reso-
luton is obvious. But it was wholly
ineffective until approved by the presi-
dent. This occurred ON June 80. And
| by it's own terms, the act became eff
fective on it's approval by the president
but one day before. Plainly, there
fore, on June 80, the resolution was
powerless to postpone that which had
already occurred on June 20.
while possibly on June 80 the reso-
luton might operate to suspend the act
for period of time (and as to this
express no opinion), the questions
presented by the demurrers to these in.
dictments are to be determined as il
a postponement or suspension Of the
act had not been attempted"
| After observing that the ElEins law
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
| Elkins law prior to it's repeal, the
court quoted section 13 of the revised
statutes of the United States enacted
in 1871:
"The repeal of any statute shall moi
have the effect to release or extinguisf
any penalty, forfeiture or liability in
CURED under such statutes, unless the
repeating act shall so expressly provide,
and for the purpose of sustaining any
proper action or prosecution for en-
forcement of such penalty, forfeiture OF
liability
This law" said the court, has beer
attacked here as an unWarranted at
tempt by the congress that enacted II
| 10 cuIldll lHS dulHOTlIy Ol ouCCeeulllE
congresses by limiting in advance the
effect to be given to their enactments
"Now, under our constitution, each
congress is the equal, in point of power,
of any predecessor or successor. There
fore no congress has authority to draw
in the boundaries of the legislative do
main to the embarrassment of any
other congress. But as l read section
13 this is not attempted.
1T is rather the substitution of new
rule to be observed by the courts in the
| construction of statutes thereafter tC
be enacted. 1t seems to me that such
new rule is no more an impairment OF
the legislative power of succeeding con-
crosses than was previously existing
common law rule an impairment of the
power of preceding congresses.
THAT congress had the constitutional
power to make the change Is plain
That any succeeding congress may abb
rogate the new rule and restore the old
rule is equally plain. That until such
old rule is restored each succeeding
congress intends that the courts shall
be guided by the new rule in giving
| effect to other enactments seems to me