New-York tribune., 1908-02-25
REBATE FINES UPHELD
ELKINS ACT IN FORCE.
Decision against Great Northern
Hits STANDARD Oil Also.

WASHINGTON, Feb a4.-The United States Su-
prene Court to-day, in the case of the Great
Northern Railroad Company against the United
States. decided that Section l of the Elkins act,
prohibiting the giving Of rebates by railroads,
not repealed by the Hepburn railroad rate
law as the Great Northern company contended.
The decision does away with one Of the chief
points on which the Standard Oil Company has
relied to defeat the $4,000 900 fine imposed by
Judge Lands in the Chicago & Alton rebate
case 1t is not determinative, however. of the
appeal of the Standard Oil Company. other
points have been raised by the corporations
attorneys.
The instituted in the United States
Court for the District of Minnesota, which fined
the railroad $1,000 each for fifteen violations of
the first section of the Elkins law. The alleged
offences were committed in the summer of
1905 and consisted in granting concessions to
the W. P. Devereaux Company its shipments
of oils of from Minneapolis to points in
Washington. The company admitted the con-
cessions and fought the prosecution on the
ground that by amending the Elkins act SO as
to provide for punishment by Imprisonment
rather than by fines the Hepburn law had
modified the original law to accomplish its
repeal and render punishment under # imprac-
ticable. To-days decision announced by
Justice White and affirmed the finding of the
District Court and the United States Court of
Appeals
JUSTICE WHITES OPINION.
Justice White said that the effect of the Hep
burn law on the Elkins act must be considered
in the light of Section 13. Revised Statutes.
which provides that the repeal of any statute
shall not have the effect of releasing any penalty
or liability incurred under the statute repealed.
He said it was clear that the mere repeal of
conflicting laws is in way repugnant TO that
statute, and that there could be no contention
that. standing alone, the act had the result of
destroying the effect of Section 13- Quoting
Section 10T of the Hepburn act, which provides
that the act shah not affect eases pending in
the courts" Justice White said:
The difficulty Of construction if any, arises
from the word following the general repeating
clause: But the amendments herein provided
courts Of the United States, but such cases shall
be prosecuted to conclusion in the manner here
tofore provided by law" These words, We think,
do not, expressly or by fair implication, conflict
with the general rule established by Section 13,
Revised Statutes, since by their very terms they
are concerned with the application to proceed
lngs pending IN the courts OF the United States
of the new methods of procedure created by the
Hepburn law. Any other construction would
necesSitate eXpunging the words snail be prose-
cuted to conclusion in the manner heretofore
provided by law" This follows because if it
were to be held that the intent and object OF
the iawmaker in dealing with cases pending in
the courts Of the United States" solely 10
depart as to all but such pending cases. from the
general rule of Revised Statutes (Section 1S),
then the provision to future proceedings
would be unnecessary, because the old an6
repealed well the newly enacted remedies
would be applicable far pertinent to such
pending causes.
The provision commanding that the new rene-
dies should not be applicable to causes then
pending in the courts of the United States gives
significance to the whole clause and serves to
make clear the fact that the Legislative mind
was concerned with the confusion or uncertainty
which might be begotten from applying the new
remedies to causes then pending in the courts
and demonstrates, therefore, that this subject,
and this subject alone, the matter with
which the provision in question intended to
deal. In other words, when the object contem-
plated by the provision is accurately fixed the
subject is freed from difficulty, and not only the
clear; that IS to say, 1t but manifeSts the pur-
pose of Congress to leave cases pending in the
courts to be prosecuted under the prior remedies,
thus causing the new remedies created TO be
applicable to all controversies not at the time of
the passage Of the act pending in the courts.
And all the arguments relied upon 10 sustain the
fences not then pending in the courts alb
rOgated by the Hep burn law rest in substance
upon the disregard of the true significance of
the provision of Section 10.
Thus the argument that by the application of
the elementary rules by which the inclusion of
must be considered as the exclusion of the
other, II follows that the power TO further prose-
cute ell but cases then pending in the courts
destroyed by the Hepburn law, because
pending causes enumerated in Section 10.
and are, hence, not saved by Revised Statutes,
Section I2, simply assumes that the provision of
Section 10 intended to save the right to
courts, and 1isregardS the fact that the pro-
. vision TO pending causes was seley addressed
to the remedies to be applied in the future car
rying on of such cases