Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-01-04
MUSIS1AnD1R TRIAL
Standard Oil DemurFers
Are 0veITu|sd.
Two Stand Because Of Techni-
cal Defects In Indictments.
cenieailens Of Defendant Turned
Down on Every Point.

United States district court today over
ruled the demurrer to eight indictments
against the Standard Oil Co.. for ac-
cepting rebates from railroad compa-
nies. AS to two others the demurrer
was sustained on account of technical
defects in the indictments.
''These prosecutions said the court,
':are for alleged violation of the Elkins
law. The charge is that the defendant
Obtained the transportation Of its prop
erty by various railway companies at
rates less than those named in the car
rieIs' published schedules"
The court ruled against the defend
ants contention that the Elkins law
was enacted really TO prohibit the en-
ployInent of indirect methods to OBJ
tain preferential rates and also that
the provisions of the ElkinS law re-
quiriDx shippers to adhere to a pub
lished rate was void as being against
the provision Of the interstate conf
merce law whc.. required carriers TO
transport for n reasonable rate. the
court holding that carriers and ship
pers were both required to adhere TO
the published rate until such rate was
publicly changed In the manner pro-
vided by law. The court ruled against
the defendants contention that the in
dictmcnts were bad because the inter-
state commerce law did not require
railway companies tn publish rates be-
tween points beyond the carriers own
line of road. holding that law applied
with the same force that it 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. The
terminal charges in question consisted
OF storage charges that had accrued on
petroleum consigned to the Standard
Oil Co., at Chicago and which the In
dictment charges the Lake Shore &.
Michigan Southern Railway Co.. cam
celled and released to the Standard Oil
Co.. this giving the Standard Oil Co.
a. rebate In respect, of the transporta-
ton Of the petroleum.
1T is cOntended in behalf of the
United States,' said the court. that
the act Of June 70. 1903, did not go into
effect until after these Indictment;
were returned. 1t is urged that the
pestponeInent was effected II 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 co
days after its approval by the Pres
ident of the United States
"Of course. the purpose Of this reso-
luton is obvious. But it was wholly
ineffective until approved by the Pres
ident. This occurred June 80. And,
by its own terms. the act became eff
fective on its approval by the Presi-
dent one day before. The resolution
was powerless to postpone that which
had already occurred on June 80. the
resolution might operate to suspend
the act for period Of time (and as
to this l express no OpiniOn) the OBJ
jections presented by the demurrers
to these indictments are to be deter
mined as though a postponement or
suspension of the act had not been at
tempted"
After observing that the Elkins law
was repealed by the rate law and that
unless there was a statute keeping
alive for future prosecution offences
which had been committed against tho
Elkins law prior to its repeal, the court
quoted section Is OF the revised stat
utes OF the United States enacted in
1871.
This law" said the court, has been
attacked here as an unwarranted at
tempt by the Congress that enacted it
to curtail the authority of succeeding
Congresses, by limiting in advance the
effect to be given to their enactments.
1T is the duty Of the court" said
Judge lands, ito enforce the will of
Congress as expressed in the written
enactment. In the ascertainment of
that will. l am not at liberty to ignore
the ultimate object of the law. That
object was the establishment of uni
form railroad rates. reasonable in
amount The former law had failed to
accomplish this and was therefore
strengthened. Instead of being wiped
of the books as having served its pur-
pose additional and severe liabilities
were created and more drastic remc-
dies and penalties authorized. For the
offence with (which the defendant
stands charged the preceding Elkins
law prescribed punishment only by
fine. 1Ulse view entertained by the pres
ent Congress respecting this offence
finds expression in the provision au-
thorizing the additional penalty of i'm
prisonment In the penitentiary. AMI
the court is asked to hold that this
same Congress deliberately intended to
pardon all under indicted prior Offend
ers whose conduct it was. more than
all other causes combined that moved
Congress to enact the rigid far-reach-
inc mea Sure of June %
MY opinion Is that the so-called saw
Ing clause in section 10 was inserted
for the sole purpose Of definitely pre-
scribing the rule Of procedure that
should control the prosecution of
causes then pending in various states
in the courts. thus avoiding the confus-
ion and controversy which as expert
ence has shown. must otherwise have
resulted"
The court overruled the demeurrer
to eight of the indictments and sus-
tanned 1t as to two on technical
grounds.
This law" said the court, "has been
attacked here as an unwarranted attempt
by the Congress that enacted it to cur