Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-07-22

ter-state commerce commission two
days later; that such tariff sheet was
| among the tariff files in possession OF
the plaintiff in error; and that the
latter during the period named shipped
hereunder a large number OF cars of
petroleum and products at said rate;
and that such rate was equivalent 10
the shipper of the rate of cents over
the Alton. owing to a u OF cent ter
minal charges, all of which evidence
was excluded as was also the offer of
the tariff sheet itself, produced from
the Mes of the Interstate commerce
commission and an amendment there
to filed in April. 1903"
The opinion here includes Judge Laa-
dis charge to the jury in which The
district judge declares that to show
that the defendant accepted a conces-
sion knowingly IL was not necessary TO
establish the defendant had actual
knowledge of the lawful rate.
INTENT TO ACT.
At this phase of the case the opln-
ion OF the court Of appeals declares:
In this Interpretation of the inter-
stale commerce law. 80 far as 1t relates
TO shippers, we cannot concur The
cases cited by the government such
as those requiring liquor sellers at
their peril to know whether the per-
son to whom drink is sold Is "A minor
or within the prohibition OF the act
or not, are not controlling, nor very
persuasive. The interstate commerce
act was intended to promote, not to
restrain, trade and commerce-to Sc
cure fair dealings in commerce
through uniformity. not to put OBJ
structlons in the way of commerce.
surely the farmer who brings his
produce to town to be shipped to the
city markets or the small merchant
shipping TO the country. or the house
holder who ships his furniture were
not meant by the interstate commerce
law to be guilty OF having accepted
concession merely because they took
the word Of the carrier or his agent
as 10 what the rate was. In
this respect the shipper and the
carrier stand ON different ground.
The carrier is required by a
separate provision of the law TO estab.
llsh and publish rates and is forbidden
To charge or collect from the shipper
a rate greater or less than such es-
tablished and published rate. But is
the ordinary shipper under any reason
able view of the situation to which the
law relates. thus bound--bouNd at his
peril under the law intended to pro-
mote commerce, TO cipher out before he
can safely put anything that he has in
To commerce. all the confusing papers
and figures that generally make up a
tariff sheet? Plainly not. it seems TO
US"
In support of this contention. the
court cites First Bishop New Criminal
Law. section 2S6.'
WORD OF A CARRIER.
Though it is true that large ship
pers like the plaintiff In error do not
usually take the word OF a carrier as
TO what the rate Is but examine for
themselves the tariff sheet and have
all the knowledge that is necessary TO
an intelligent examination from which
1t might easily follow that professions
of ignorance on tpe part of such ship
p@rs would stand on a different plane
from the ordinary shipper, II does
not on that account follow that the ul-
innate question of intent is not the
same whether the shipper be large
one or small one; for the law is the
same, viz That before conviction
there must be proof of all the facts
upon which the shippers offense Ia
predicabd.
WHAT CONSTITUTES oFFBNsE.
This view OF what IL essential 10
constitute the offense makes II plain
that the trial court was in error, as
matter Of law in the application 20
the case OF the shipper as a matter
of principle that the trial court applied
In this case. And this error In made
all the palmer. lifting Il from wnat
otherwise might be considered n mere
technical error TO the level OF a real
substantial error. when the exact ma
ture of the so-called tariffs published
aud filed, relied upon by tho govern
mont as the lawful rates, are scrutln-
lied; and when the rate that the trial
court deCiphered out Of these papers, IN
with admitted rates on Other
roads for the same product, ana with
the admitted rates on tho Same road
for like product. The tariff sheet
relied upon as tho lawful published
rate filed with the interstate commerce
commission Ia tariff sheet No. "a OF the
Chicago q ST. Louis Traffic associa-
ton and the first thing TO be noted ls
that this tariff sheet makes no refer
ence by name 10 petroleum or the prod
uctA Of petroleum. on the face OF that
tariH sheet no IL cent rate for
petroleum Of the products of petroleum
appears. The ls-oent ratio was only ar. |
rived az by process OF cirnumlocu.
non mat Is TO say on tho face OF
lhese tariff sheets there was found
!, Y, printed line governed by Illinois oass,
iinoallon, except az noted herein, there. |
py turning 10 The classification adopted
by me railroad and WAREHOUSES noin'
mission OF Illinois, Hspt T. 1899, Il VA |