Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-01-03
DECISION AGAINST
STANDARD OIL CO.
Demurrers to Eight Indictments
OverruIed in Illinois.
TWO BILLS ARE SUSTAINED
Court Rules That There Had Been
Direct Violations of Law.
PREFERENTIAL RATES QUESTION
Railway Company Has No Right 70
Give Shippers Cut Rates,
Says the Decision. r {
Court Rules That There Had Been
Direct Violations of Law.
PREFERENTIAL RATES QUESTION

An important decision was made
against the Standard Oil Company
in the United States district codrt
at Chicago today, when Judge Lam
dis overruled the demurrer to eight
indictments. But two of the bills
were sustained, and they because
of technical defects. In the ex-
haustive opinion handed down it
was stated that it was the duty Of
the court to enforce the will of Con-
gress as expressed in the written
enactment.
CHICAGO, January 3.-Judge Lands, in
the United States district court today over
Company to eight indictments pending
against that corporation. but sustained tho
demurrer as to two other Indictments be-
cause Of technical defects.
"These prosecutions said the court ARE
for alleged violation of section l of the
act approved February 10, 1903. known as
the Elkins law. The charge is that the de-
PENDANT obtained the transportation OF it's
property by various railway companies at
rates less than those named in the car
riers' published schedules. The offenses
are alleged to have been committed prior
to the enactment of the law approved June
20, 1906, known the rate law. The indict-
ments were returned August %, 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,
1t being the defendants contention that it
was not violation OF the law il a railway
company, dealing directly with a shipper.
gave that shipper cut rate.
The Published Rate
The court also ruled against the defend
ants claim that the provisions of the Ell.
kins law requiring shippers to adhere to a
published rate was void, as being against
that provision of the interstate commerce
law which required carriers to transport
property for a reasonable rate, the court
holding that carriers and shippers were
both required to adhere to the published
rate until such rate was publicly changed
in the manner prescribed by law. The court
luIIHSE Tueu against lQc Q0lGDOaDt con-
tention that the indictments were bad be-
cause the interstate commerce commission
law did not require railway companies to
publish rates between points beyond the
carriers own line of road, holding that II
carrier, having made an arrangement
with connecting lines for the transportation
of property beyond it's own line, should
thereupon publish rates for the transporta-
ton of property between such points; the
carrier must be therefore held as to tho
shipping public to have facilities for the
transportation of property to such points
beyond its own line, and that the require
ment of the law applied to such a case with
the same force that it applied to point on
the carriers own line.
Against the Defendant.
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
such terminal charges, inasmuch the
consiger would have only little, if any in
terest in the question, the law plainly was
intended to be binding on consgnees 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
Company Cancelled and released to the
Standard Oil Company, thus giving the
Standard Oil Company a rebate in respect
of the transportation Of petroleum.
1T is commended in behalf of the United
States" said the court, that the act Of
June %. 1903, 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 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 is Obvious.
''Of course, the purpose of this resolution
is obvious. But it was wholly ineffective
until approved by the President. This oc-
Cured June 80 And, by its own terms, tho
act became effective on its approval by the
President one day before. Plainly, there
fore, on June 80 the resolution was power.
less to postpone that which had already oc-
Cured on June 80 While possibly on June
30 the resolution might operate to suspend
the act for a period of time (and as to
this express no opinion) the question pre-
scented by the demurrers to these indct-
ments are to be determined as though q
postponement or suspension of the act had
not been completed.
After observing tnat the ElklnS law was
repealed by the rate law and that unless
there was a statute keeping alive for fu-
ture prosecution offenses which had been
committed against the Elkins law prior
to its repeal. the court quoted section ID
of the Revised Statutes of the United States
enacted in 1871.
This law" said the court, has been
attacked here as an unwarrantabie at
tempt by the Congress that enacted II to
curtail the authority OF succeeding Con-
crosses by limiting in advance the effect
to be given to their enactments. II 10
rather the substitution Of new rule to
be observed by the courts in the con-
struction Of statutes thereafter to be en-
acted. That, until such old rule is re-
stored, each succeeding Congress intenca