The Cairo bulletin., 1908-08-22

SldIitt,
The Government strenuOusly con
tends that the effect of the construc-
tion Of the statute announced by the
Court Of Appeals is to nulify the In
terstate Commerce Act so far as ship
pers are concerned; to make its en-
| forcement impossible, and TO plunge the
! country again into the deplorable con
dition of railroad determinations and
| fayoritsm which existed prior to its
passage
| The Government contends that the
| Court of Appeals has no right to place
this construction upon the statute in
the face of the fact that the vecy
question involved in this case has beon
expressly left open by the Supreme
! Court in the Armour Packing Com.
pany case, recently decided by that
court The precise question involved
in this case was stated by the Su4
preme Court however, because It was
not involved but was left open
The Government insists that before
| laying down this harsh rule and prac
tically nullifying the law the Court cf
| Appeals should certify in accordance
with the statute this question to the
| Supreme Court for its decision that
no court short of the Supreme Court
| should undertake practically to viii @
the Interstate Commerce Act from tbs
statutes.
The petition states before the Gov
ernment is required to try tlis case
under the rigid rule of construction
laid down by his court. is it not mani
festly fair and right in the interest
not only of Justice in this case, but in
the interest of a final and definite con
struction of this important statute,
that judgment be taken OF the highest
tribunal if the nation?'
The Government contends that the
Court of Appeals in its opinion, has
laid down an erroneous rule for de
termining the number of ofenses.
The Government contends that each
shipment is the basis of a distinct Of
fense; and that in this case each car.
load was a separate shipment
The Circuit Court of Appeals has
held that there is but one offense for
each settlement for freight
The Government cites against this
the opinion of Presiding Judge Grcss-
fY hn Of
IIanley, n Fed. Rep, G72, G75, ~
which that Judge laid down an exactly
contrary rule to the one which he laid
down in the Standard Oil case,
The Government contends that the
rule laid down by the Court of Appeals
is contrary TO the principles of the
Elkins Act and leaves it TO the ship
per and carrier to elect for how many
offenses they will be prosecuted and
how much they shall be fined.
The Government contends in the pc.
tition that the Court of Appeals has
done a great injustice to trial Judge
Lands in mistating what he did in
connection with the imposition of the
fine on the Standard Oil Company.
The Circuit Court of Appeals in ita
opinion charges that Judge Lands as
sumed to fine the Standard Oil Com |
pany of New Jersey, and imposed the |
large fine for the reason that he was
satisfied that the Standard Oil Com |
pany of New Jersey was not virgin |
offender"
The Government shows in its peti
tion that Judge Lands never referred
to the Standard Oil Company of New
Jersey in this connection and that the
language used was in connection with |
the Standard Oil Company of Indiana. |
and that nowhere were the proceedings
directed or pretended to be directed
against the Standard Oil Company OF
New Jersey.
The Government takes issue with /
the Court of Appeals that Judge Ian
dis proceedings in this case amount /
ed to a strange doctrine in ARglo-Sax- /
on Jurisprudence" and says that the
of Judge Landis are in /
accordance with the rule of procedure
pointed out by Mr.. Bishop in his work /
On criminal law as one of the elemen-
AIRY principles of that jurisprudence !
recognized from the earliest days.
The Government takes issue with 4
the Circuit Court of Appeals as to its !
that defendant cannot /
be fined more than the value of the 1
which he possesses and |
states that this rule is an innovation /
in criminal Law and if applied would /
Concluded or Third Fsge.i