The Washington times., 1908-09-10
CONTINUED from First Page)

hearing Of arguments be disposed Of in
the opinion, is not within the rule gov
ernlng such applications.
We take up the grounds urged in
support OF this application in the order
IN which the counsel for Government
presented them.
II Is urged by counsel that TIE court
should give consideration sgain to the
purposes which Congress had in the
passage of the act makilz tt criminal
for shippers &c accept concessions from
the lawful published transportation
rates.
"All Of this was elaborateIy presented
10 this court IN former arguments
No Favoritism Shown.
There IS nothing of inequality OF
rates as between different shippers. or
of favorttism to this defendant averTed
or proved IN this record.
II this prosecution had involved any
charge or issue of thaJ kind by de-
fendant. then, before counsel could base
any argument upon lt, some clear pcoof
On the part of the Government must
have been presented 10 sustain its side
OF that issue The defendant is prose-
cuted for receiving the same rate as
lar circumstances.
Again, if the issue OF determination
We're an issue in this case. IT is plain
that any evidence, offered on behalf Of
the defendant which tended L. disprove
that contention. was admissible, and
could not properly be objected to by the
Government or excluded by the court.
Such evidence was objected 10 and ex-
CludeC
obviously. this evidence, if admitted
would have tended{to disprove any con-
tention that the Alton practlced any dis
crimination between the shipping public
What They Do Not Want.
But 1t IS not for the securing Of
equality OF rates as to all that tbe
counsel asked the court to reconsider
the purpose Of the Atoms act. They
say that IL is IN that portion OF the
opinion which deals with the necessity
OF some showing by the Government OF
knowledge on the part of the accused
shipper of the lawful rate. in order 10
justify his conviction. that the court has
failed TO give due weight 10 the purpose
which Congress had in the passage of
the law. The court is invited TO find
III that act purpose to impose upon
shippers the duty OF ascertaining that
the rate which they pay for transporta-
tlon is the lawful rate. Counsel are
az BlllB IN support or the rulings of
me trial court that the proof need not
establish that the accused shipper had
knowledge of the lawful rate. Counsel !
say that the supreme Court, in the case
or the Abilene Cotton OIL Company, /
rules that II was the duty of the shin
per 10 ascertain the published rate. [
What the court said was that the
amendments TO the Interstate Commerce
act nave had the effect Of making more
imperative the adhesion by both carriers /
ana Shippers TO the rates established. I
lu other words. il was not duty 10 4
ascertain the rates which the court there /
held was imposed, but TO adhere 10 1
Them.
Exception Taken.
Part two says: THE exceptions which /
counsel take TO the statement of the
opinion of this court with respect TO /
the rulings of the trial upon the ques-
uon Of knowledge on the part of the
accused shipper OF the lawful rate, are
based upon misrepresentation of the
matter The material question is, does
the opinion pass upon the same oues-
uons which the trial court so ruled
Upon?'" "
After quoting from the records and
instructions 20 the jury to show that
evidence as To the knOWledge of 80 |
traffic manager as 10 H.
legal rate was not submitted 10 tba
jury, the answer continues:
80 Ihe trial court ruled and charged
.'LaI the proof need not establish that /
me GeIendant had actual knowledge of
the lawful rates; and this. notWfth
the fact that the Indictment
alleges such knowledge. and charged
mat the defendant knowingly accepted