The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1908-08-21
sr,>n,un OH co. INDIANA.

yQ04 20.oST ZOO ca
1905 ...,....'.....'''' ~, ,S'n ,Sa "a
1906. ...... .......,..,.-.- @'l'"-''o' ''
Hollands told him tina: the ra'c had
leen filed
The tffai Judge ruled that ignorance
sssIfszt iisl=astft= a shlpneT OF WHIT 'he
lawful rate was, COUNT nv IF q 't';-.,.s
ns defense. but thai II would nor
constitute a defense il 1t appeared
that the ignorance was the result OF
neglect on the part OF the shipper OF
~ wiltul failure on the part OF inc
shipper To resort to the sources Oh
7ufurruutf iit4--++- Er4Ase- IXAllAhle
The government contends that thlS
L. the correct construction o. the
-tatute on this subject.
The court OF appeals lays down the
rule that IL is necessary for he gov
crnment to show beyond reasonaD'e
Goubt. as a part OF its ease, that the
shipper actually knew what tho law
ful published and filed rate was
An Impossible Rule.
The government contends that this
s. an impossible rule that it * con
trarv TO the purpose of the Elkins act
that il is contrary 10 the general rule
applicable In criminal cases; 'hat pu,
into effect il would make OF ire inter
state commerce commission act
mere will-o.thc- wisp' OF legislation,
phantom statute destitute OF
|-t,treltstA -Gr-s llhslance----.--
Proof Defendant Did Not Know,
The government contends that an
examination OF the record will show
that the court did not rule out the
testimony. tending TO show want OF
knowledge. but that. on the contrary,
all proper evidence tending 10 sho"
| that the defendant was ignorant or the
facts with reference 10 the legal rate
was admitted for the consideration on
the itfFF-aHA- tAaLthere- Mas ample
evidence TO show that the defendant
cid know what the legal rate was.
The government contends That the
effect of the construction Of the stat
vie announced by the court OF appeals
IL to nulify the interstate commerce
act so FAR as shippers are concerned.
30 make its enforcement Impossible,
ETTrf III plunge -t44+a-eoAn1rY again into
The deplorable condition Of railroad
determinations and favoritism which
|-eSi4teA pHinr-ln its pasAage--
The government contends that the
this construction upon the statute In
the face of the fact that the very
question involved in this case has
been expressly left open by the SUI
preme court in the Armour Packing
-tio.-cast.5- recently -Gpetdcd-hT-
court
The government insists that before
laying down this harsh rule and prac
iically multiplying the law the court Of
appeals should certify in accordance
with the statute this question to the
supreme court FOR It's decision, that
no court short of the supreme court
should practically undertake TO wipe
The interstate commerce act from the
statutes.
The petition states: Before the
government is required to try this
case under the rigid rule of construc
ton laid down by this court, is il not
manfestly fair and right in the inter.
est not only OF justice in this case,
but in the interest OF final and def
mite construction of this important
statute, that judgment be taken of the
highest tribunal of the nation
Each Shipment an OHense.
The government contends that each
shipment is the basis of a distinct of
Tense; and that in this case each car
load was a separate shipment
The circuit court of appeals has
held that there is but one ofense for
each settlement for freight
The government cites against this
he opinion of Presiding Judge Gross
Gun I'm the case of United States VS.
IIanley. II. fed rep, 672. 675. in which
that Judge laid down an exactly con
IN hn Va a
down in the Standard Oil ease
The government contends that the
rule laid down by the court of appeals
is contrary to the principles OF the
Elkins act and leaves II To The ship
per and carrier TO elect for how many
offenses they Will be prosecuted and
how much they shall be fined.
Injustice to Judge Lands.
The government contends In the pc
tition that the court OF appeals has
done a great injustice to Trial Judge
lands In misstating what he did In
connection with the imposition OF the
fine on the Standard oil Co.
The circuit court OF appeals in It's
opinion charges that Judge Lands as
sumed to fine the Standard Oil Co. OF
New Jersey and imposed the large
fine for the reason mat re WIS sHttv-
fed that the Standard oil Co OF New
Jersey was not "A virgin offender"
The government shows In its Npeu-
ton that Judge Lands never referred
10 the STANDARD on CT OF Nrw Jersey
in this connection and that the Ian
guaS used was used in connection
with the Standard OIL Co. Of Indiana
and that nowhere were the proceed
ings directed or pretended to be direct.
ed against the Standard oil Co. of
New Jersey
The government takes issue with
F, the court OF appeals that Judge Ian.
DIS proceeding in this case amounted
20 a strange doctrine In Anglo-Saxon
jurisprudence and-sayS- the proceed
iugs OF Judge lands are In accord
anoe with the rules OF procedure point
ca out by Mr. Bishop in his work on