Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1907-01-04
Judge Lands of Chicago Over
rules DemurrerS to Indict-.
mentS For Violation of the
EIkinS Anti-Rebate Act,
STATUTE NOT REPEALED
BY RAILWAY RATE LAW
Purpose of Congress- Declares
Court Was to Further
Strengthen Power of People
to Punish 0ffenSe Alleged,

tBy Morning journal Special Leased wirel
Chicago Jan. 3,-Judge Lands, in
the United States district court today
oVerruled the demurrer of the Stand
ard Oil company to eight indictments
pending against that corporation, but
sustained the demurrer as to two
other indictments because of techni-
cal defects These Indictments said
the court, are for alleged violations
of section / of the act approved Feb
ruary 10, 1908, known as the Elkins
law. The charge is that the defend
ant obtained the transportation of its
property by various railway companies
at rates less than those named in the
carriers published schedules. The Of
fenses 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 81, 1906"
The court ruled against the de-
fendants contention that the Ell
kins law was enacted really to pro-
hibit the employment of indirect
methods to obtain preferential rates,
it being the defendants contention
that it was not a violation of the law,
if a railroad company dealing direct !
ly with a shipper, gave that shipper
a cut rate.
The court also ruled against the de- |
fendants claim that the provision of
the Elkins law required shippers to
adhere to a published rate was void /
as being against that provision of the /
interstate commerce law which re- \
quired carriers to transport property I
for reasonable rate, the court hold |
ing that carriers and shippers were /
both required to adhere to the pub |
lished rate until such was publicly |
changed in the manner provided by |
law. {
The court further ruled against the |
contention that the in
dictments We're void because the in
terstate commerce law did not re-
quire railway companies to publish
rates between points beyond the car
rier's own line of road, holding that If
a carrier, having made an arrange
ment with connecting lines for the
of property beyond its
own line, should thereon publish
rates for the TRANSFORMATION of prop
erty between such points, the carrier
must therefore be held as to the ship
ping public, to have facilities for the
of property to such
points beyond its own line and that
the requirement Of the law applied to
a point on the carriers own line.
The court ruled against the de-
fendants contention that the provi-
sion of the interstate commerce law
requiring carriers to publish terminal
charges was not operative upon con-
signees, holding that in respect to
such terminal charges, inasmuch as
he consgnor would have but little if
any interest in the question. the law
plainly was intended to be binding
IN consignee. The terminal charges
n question consisted of large amounts
IF storage charges that had accrued
.Ir.... I
ird oil company at Chicago and
which the Indictment charges the
lake Shore and Michigan Southern
Railroad company cancelled and re-
eased to the Standard Oil company,
hus giving the Standard Oil company
rebate in respect of the transporta-
ion of the petroleum.
"It is contended in behalf of the
United States" said the court. 'that
he act Of June 20, 1906 did not go
ntO effect until after these indict-
nents were returned. 1t is urged that
he postponement was effected by the
adoption Of the joint resolution by
congress, approved June 80 1905.
That resolution provides that the rate
aw shall take effect and be in force
iXty davs after its approval by the
president of the United States.
"Of course, the purpose of this res
'lution is obvious. But it was wholly
ineffective until approved by the pres
dent This occurred on June 30.
And. by its own terms. the act he
anne effective on its approval by the
PRESIDENT one day before. Plainly,
therefore,. on June 80. the resolution
vas powcrless to postpone that which
lad already occurred on June 20.
While possibly on June 80 the reso-
utiOn might operate to suspend the
ct for a period of time and as to this
express no opinion. the questions
presented by these indictments are
o be determined as II "A postponement
n suspension Of the act had not been
ttcmpted"
After observing that tho Elkins law
vas repealed by the rate law and
hat unless there was q statute keep (
ng alive for future prosecutions Of S
enses which had been committed q
against the Eikins law prior 70 It's re- 4
zeal. the court quoted section 3 Of ,
he revised statutes Of The United
states enacted in 1871
THE repeal Of any statute shall not Z
lave the effect 90 release or eXlnguish ,
lny penalty. forfeiture or liability In ,
'urred under such statute. unless the
-eDeaiinF act shalt 30 expressly pro-
lde, and such statute shall Dee treated +.
ls stili remaining in force f0r the pur- 1
lose Of sustaining any proper action .
lr prosecution for fhe euf0I fnfnt ~ \
uch 20 penalty forfeiture or NaplitN 3
This law sHld tne court has /.
lesn attacked here as 800 unHarfanied I
attempt bs fhn fHufreaa iHai rnafied )
= 49, curi1l lhe Hulhoufg no lreeed- 2
nr cenFr hF lwlrnF '1 Hlfln,.'