The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-08-04
Arqument of Defense.

1y with the Chicago and Alton, which rendered all bills at through service.
 Argument of Defense.
 The defense argued that the Elklns law authorized the prosecution for but one offense and maintained that there could be a conviction on only one count The court held that the law Is violated every time any transportation Is so transported as the legal rate was established by the railroad company on car lot basis. The unlawful cent rate was granted and accepted on that basis. As to the defen- dant's claim that the representations or the Alton rate had misled 1t into the sin cere belief that the Altons cent rate had been filed with the Interstate com merce commission, held that as the law required the carrier to keep the schedule at its freight office for public inspection, 1t was the defendants duty to ascertain at all the railroads offices whether the rate was so fixed, and it being found 10 show to the jury whether the testimony exhibited the truth of the transactlon' The jury having found a verdict of guilty 1t becomes the duty of the court to TX the punishment
 Evidence Discussed.
 me court then discussed the evidence offered by the defendant to the effect that durin,, the period covered by the lndiet- ment. the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad company published an operative rate Of 6h cents from Whiting to Hast St. Louis The court held that this fact should be considered in mitigation, II true. although inadmissible before the 1ury as to guilt or innoncence and the court after verdict had been given, d. rected the production of all schedules oy that railroad. From these. 1t appeared tH connection with ether railway companies issued ana filed with the commerce commission a class tariff and fixed the rate at Is cents from Chicago to Last St. Louis
 On october 9, 1895, the Eastern Illinois company filed with the commission us commodity tariff fixing rate of oA cents on oil from Dalton, H., to East St. Louis and providing that out Of thls ra @ switching charge of not to ex- ceeo sS per car would be absorbed on shipments from Whiting, Ind. On July l. 1903, sixty days prior to the beginning ol the period covered by the indictment in this case, the Eastern Illinois issued us joint tariff No. 17,679. This general c.ass tariff provided that between Ch1- cage suburban stations, Including Whit ing. Ipd and East St. Louis, Ill., the current rates in effect from Chicago, should apply except on coal, coke, grain ana products, lumberSand articles talk ing the same rates or arbitraries higher, live stock and hay. oil was not included In the commodities thus excepted from these class rates. Among the tarin spe- ciauy named and In connection with which this schedule was to be effective were tariff No. 1886, above mentioned. which fixed rate of IS cents per 100 pounds on oil from Chicago to East St. Louis and the tariff heretofore referred to, which the Eastern Illinois road was a party to, which is described as a tariff on classes and commodities between Chicago and East St. Louis and which also showed the rate on oil to be IS cents.'
 The court held that its effect was to exhibit to the general shipping public rale of IS cents on oil from Whiting to East st. Louis. The court then recites that on July 2, 1908, one day after this tariff became effective, the Eastern Illinois company, apparently recognizing that the effect of this tariff was to nullify the 6A cent rate shown by It's schedule No. s, tho 73, effective in October, 1895, is sued what 1t demonnated Amendment No. 1 to tariff No. 79S6," that being the Eastern Illinois class tariff of Septem- Der, 1895, which had fixed rate of IS cents per 100 pounds on oil from Chicago to East St. Louis and which was em- braced within the general class tariff referred to.
 This amendment purported to cancel the 6A cent Whiting East St. Louis oil rate shown on the tariff filed with the commission in October, 1895 and named commodity rate on oil of 6A cents per 100 pounds from Chicago and Dalton Junction, Ill.,, to East St. Louis. However, this amendment No. l was not filed with the interstate commerce commission until March, 1906. one year after the expiration of the period GOV cred by the indictment and nearly three years after its issue. In view of these facts, the court held that the Eastern Illinois situation could not serve the purpose of eXcusing or palliating the excepting by the defendant of the un- lawful Alton cent rate.
 The Real Defendant.
 The court then reviews it's action in determining what corporation held tn @ stock of the defendant Standard oil Company of Indiana. This demonstra- ted that very large portion of the stock was held by individuals of the stockh olders of the Standard oil com pany of New Jersey which has out standing stock of approximately s1OO,- 900, 900.