The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-01-04
DEMURRERS
 OVERRULED Judge Landis's lmpor- tant Decision. SLOW FOR STANDARD OIL Prosecution Under E1kins Act is
 Declared Valid. Indictments Against Trust Are stiii Good Despite Fact That Law AL Issed To Be violated Was
 Repealed.
SLOw FOR STANDARD OIL

Repealed.
 Chicago. Jan. s,---Judge Landis. in the United States District Court today. overruled the demurrer of the Stand ard Oil Company to eight indictments standing against that corporation,s but sustained the demurrer as to two other Indictments because of techincal de- fects. tE
 These prosecutions" said the court, sare for alleged violations of Section 1 of the act approved February g. 1903. known as the Elkins law. The charge ia that the defendant obtained the transportation of its property by va- rious railway companies at rates less than those named in the carriers pub lisfaed schedules. The offenses are al- leged to have been committed prior to the enactment of the law approved June 29, 1906. known as the rate law. The indictments were returned August 27, 1906"
 The court ruled against the defen- dant's contention that the Elkins law was enacted really to prohibit the em- ployment of indirect methods to ob- tain preferential rates, it being the de- fendant's contention that 1t was not A violation of the law, If railway x per. gave that shipper a cut rate.
 The court also ruled against the de- fendant's claim that the provision against the Elkins law requiring ship pers to adhere to published rate was void as being against that provision of the interstate commerce law. which re- quired carriers to transport property for reasonable rate, t. courA holding that carriers and shippers wee both re- quired to adhere to the published rate until such rate was publicly changed fl, the manner provided by law
 The court further ruled against the attendants contention that the indict- merts were bad because the interstate commerce law did not require railway companies to publish rates between points beyond the carriers own line Of road, holding that If carrier, wing made an arrangement with connecting lines for the transportation of property beyond its own line, should thereupon psfblish rates for the transportation Of pr6nsrty l5etwnea suUit points tsre sestis- Tier must therefore be held as to the Shipping public to have tacillties TOT theS transportation of property to such polrts beyond its own line and th 2i! fife reuuirement of the law Appffed to s,lch a case with the same force that 1t applied to a point on the carriers own line.
 Law IS hlM0hMBs
 The court ruled against the defen- aanta contention that the provision of tne interstate commerce law reGuir- 5 ins carriers to publish terminal charg- as was not operative under consignees, holding that in respect to such termi- nal charges. inasmuch as the conslg- nor would have if any but little in- terest in the question, the law plain Iv was intended to be binding on con signees. The terminal charges Tn question consisted of large amounts of storage charges that had accrued tn petroleum consigned to the stan dard oil Company at Chicago and which Indictment chrges the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company cancelled and released to the stan dard oil Company, thus giving the Standard Oil Company rebate Tn re- speet of the petroleum
 s.It is contended in behalf of the Tinted States" said the court that fine act of June 29, 1906, did not go into effect until after these indict- nents were returned. It is urged that fhe postponement was effected by the adoption of the join resolution by Con- gress, approved June 30. 1906. That resolution provides that the. rate law shall take effect and be in force sixty days after it's approval by the Presi- dent of the United States
 "Of course the purpose of this reso- i,ition Is obvious. But 1t was wholly ineffective until approved by the Presi- dent. This occurred on June 3O.. And, hy it's own terms, the act became ef- fectiye on it's approval by the President one day before. Plainly, therefore, on Tune 30. the resolution was powerlcss to postpone that which already had hadd ookurred on June s29 While possibly on June 30. the resolution might oper- afe to suspend the act for a period of time (and as to this I express no opln- ion.) the questions presented by the Aamurrers to these indictments are to ba determined as if a postponement or suspension of the act had not been at tempted"
 After observing that the Elkins law was repealed by the rate law. the court says:
 Repeal Has No Effect.
 'sThe repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extin- guish any penalty, forfeiture or liablI- ttv iacurred under such statute. unless The repeating act shall so expressly ,SroVIde and such statute shall be I treated as all remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper actio, or prosecution for the enforce ment of such penalty. forfeiture and
 .The law" said the court. has been attacked here as an unwarranted att tempt by the Congress that enacted st to curtail the authority of succeed inp Congress by limiting in advance the affect to be given to their enacta roents. Now under our constitution Saeh Congress Is the equal in point of nower of any predecessor or successor
 'sTherefore no Congress has authority 4o draw into the boundaries of the leg sslative domain to the embarrassment nf any other Congress. but as l read Section IS, this is not attempted. Ii Sn rather the substitution of a new euIe to be observed by the courts in SNe construction of statues thereafter to be enacted It seems to me that such new rule is no more an impair nent of the legislative power of suc- ceeding Congresses than was the pre- viously existing common law rule an impairment of the power of preceding Congresses.
 eThRt Congress had the constitution al power to make the change is plain That any succeeding Congres may ab- rogate the new rule and restore the old rule is equally plain.
 "It Is the duty of the court" said