Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1907-01-03
STANDARD MUST
FAC[ CHARGES
United States Court at Chicago,
Rules That Eight Indict-
ments Must Stand
OLD PENALTIES ARE in FORCE
New Rate Law Does Not Repeal Penal
Sections Of Old Elkins Law-Rather
Strengthens and Adds Clause Pro-
vidins for Not Only Fines But Inn
prisonment-Important Ruling.

Chicago, Jan. S.-Judge Lands, of
the United States district court, today
overruled the demurrer of the Standard
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" said the court.
"are for alleged violations of the Eli
kins law. The charge is defendant OBJ
tanned transportation of it's property
by various railway companies 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 act, known as
the rate law
The court ruled against defendants
contention that the Elkins law was en-
acted really to prohibit the employment
of indirect methods to obtain preferen-
tial rates, it being defendants conten-
tion that it was not in violation of law
if a railway company, dealing directly
with the shipper, gave that shipper a
cut rate.
The court also ruled against defend
ants claim. that the provision of the
Elkins law requiring shippers to adhere
to published rates 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 carriers and
shippers were both required to adhere
to the published rate until such rate
was publicly changed in manner pro-
vided by law. The court further ruled
against defendants contentious that
the indictments were bad because the
interstate commerce law did not re-
quire railway companies to publish
rates between points beyond the car
rier's own line of road and that the
provision of the interstate commerce
law requiring carriers to publish term
iual charges was not operative upon
consignee.
FcndIGISS NOI noP0di0Qs
Touching upon the Standards con-
tention that the new rate law, when
it repealed the Elkins law, also re-
pealed the penalties for acts committed
under the repealed law, the court
quoted section of the revised statutes
which provided for keeping alive for
future prosecution Of offenses that had
been committed against the law prior
to its repeal, and ruled that one con-
gress could not curtail the authority
OF succeeding congresses by limiting
in advance the effect given to their en-
actments. Continuing, Judge Landis
said
1T is the duty Of the court to en-
force the will of congress as expressed
in written enactment. In ascertain
ment of that will I am not at liberty to
ignore the ultimate object of the law.
That object was the establishment of
uniform railroad rates, reasonable in
amount. The former law had failed to
accomplish this, and was, therefore,
strengthened. Instead Of being wiped
off the books as having served its pur-
pose, additional and severe liabilities
were created, and more drastic reme-
u r
offense with which defendant stands
charged, the preceding Elkins law pre-
scribed punishment only by fine.
Penal Statute Still in Force.
The view entertained by the present
congress respecting this offense finds
expression in the provision authoriz-
ing an additional penalty of impris-
onment, and the court is asked to hold
that this same congress deliberately
intended to pardon all unindicted prior
offenders whose conduct it was more
than all other causes combined, that
moved congress to enact the rigid and
preaching measure of June 30, 1906.
"My opinion is that, whereas. at
common law. repeal of a penal statute
extinguishes all penalties for offenses
against its provisions ilf the absence
of an express saving clause, under sec
ton Is, the repeal of the penal statute
extinguishes no such penalties in the
absence of an express extinguishing
clause, which the rate law does not
contain; that the so-called saving
clause in section 10 was inserted for
the sole purpose Of definitely prescrib-
ing the rule of procedure that should
control the prosecution of causes then
pending in various stages in the courts.
thus avoiding confusion and contro-
versy which, as experience shows, must
otherwise have resulted"