The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-01-03
STANDARD LOSES
Judge Lands of the United
States District Court
OF the Indictments.
SUSTAINS TWO OTHERS
On Account of Technical De-
fects in the Bills.
Holds That ElkinS Law Still
Applies to the Case.


other indictments because of technical
defects.
These prosecutions said the
court. ARE for alleged violations of
10, 1903, known as the Elkins law.
The charge is that the defendant OBJ
tanned the transportation of its prop
erty by various railway companies at
rates less than those named in the
carriers published schedules. The Of
lenses are alleged to have been COM
mitted prior to the enactment of the
law approved June 20, 1906, known
as the rate law. The indictments were
returned August 27, 1906"
The court ruled against the defend
ants contention that the Elkins law
was enacted to prohibit the employ
ment of indirect methods to obtain
preferential rates. 1t being the defend
ants contention that 1t was not a vio-
lation of the law, if a railway COM
pany dealing directly with a shipper,
gave that shipper a cut rate.
The court also ruled against the de-
PENDANTS claim that the provision OF
the Elkins law requiring shippers to
adhere to a published rate was void as
being against that provision of the in
terstate commerce law which required
carriers to transport property for a
reasonable rate the court holding
required to adhere to the published
rate until such rate was publicly
changed in the manner provided by
law.
Against Defendant.
The court further ruled against the
defendants contention that the indfct-
ments were bad because the inter-
state commerce law did not require
railway Companies to publish rates
between points beyond the carriers
own line of road, holding that If a car
rier, having made an ARRANGEMENT
with connecting lines for the trans
portation of property beyond its own
line. should thereupon publish rates
for the transportation of property be-
tween such points, the carrier must
therefore be held as to the shipping
public to have facilities for the trans
portation of property to such points
beyond its own line and that the re-
quirement of the law applied to such
case with the same force that it ap-
Piled to a point on the carriers own
line.
The court ruled against the defen-
dant's- contention that the provision
Of the interstate commerce law requir-
ing carriers to publish terminal
charges was not operative upon con-
signees. holding that in respect to such
terminal charges, inasmuch as the
consignor would have but little if any
interest in the question, the law plain
ly was intended to be binding on con-
signees. The terminal charges in dues
ton 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 COM
pany cancelled, and released to the
Standard OIL company, thus giving the
Standard Oil company a rebate in re-
spect of the transportation of the Pc
troleum.
Act of June 20.
"It is contended in behalf of the
United States said the court that
effect until after these indictments
were returned 1t is urged that the
postponement was effected by the
adoption Of the joint resolution by
congress, approved June go, 1906.
THAT resolution provides that the
rate law shall take effect and be IN
force sixty days after it's approval by
the president of the United States.
"Of course. the purpose of this reso-
luton is obvious. But it was not who'll
ly in effect until approved by the
president This occurred on June 80.
And, by its own terms, the act became
effective on its approval by the presi-
dent one day before. Plainly, therefor,
on June 80 the resolution was power
less to postpone that which had al
possibly on June 80 the resolution
might operate to suspend the audit for
a period of time (and as to this L ex-
press no opinion,) the questions pre-
sented by the demurrers to these in
dictments are to be determined as If a
postponement or suspension of the act
had not been attempted"
After observing that the Elkins law
was repealed by the rate law and that,
unless there was a statute keeping
which had been committed against the
Elkins law, prior to its appeal, the
court quoted section 13 of the revised
statutes of the U. S. enacted in 1871:
1.-THE repeal of any statute shall not
have the effect to release or extin-
guish any penalty, forfeiture, or la
bility incurred under such statute, I'M
til the repeating act shall So expressly
provide, and such statute shall be
treated as still remaining in force for
action or prosecution for the enforce
ment of such penalty, forfeiture or la
bility."
Attack on the Law
This law" said the court, has been
attacked here as an unwarranted at
teupt by the congress that enacted it
to curtail the authority of succeeding
congresses by limiting in advance the eff
feet to be given their acts. Now under
our constitution, each congress Is the
equal. in point Of power, of any pre-
decessor, or successor. Therefore no
congress has authority to draw in the
boundaries of the legislative domain to
the embarrassment of any other con-
gress But, as read section 13, this is
not attempted. 1t is rather the sub
stitution Of a new rule to be observed
by the courts in the construction of
statutes thereafter to be enacted. 1t
seems to me that such new rule is no
more an impairment of the legislative
power of succeeding congresses than
was the previously investigating COM
mittee rule an impairment of the pre-
oadipp congresses That congress had
the Constitutional power to make the
change is plain. That any succeeding
congress may abrogate the new rule
and restore the old rule is equally