The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-07-23

ehipped 70 ctty markets, or the stu@ti merchant shipping to the country. or the householder who ships his furniture were not meant by the Interstate law to be guilty of having accepted q eon- cession merely because they took the word of the carrier or his agent as to what the rate was.
 On Different Ground.
 Tn this respect the shipper and the carrier stand on different ground. The carrier Is required by a separate pro- vision of the law. to establish and plb- | fish rates and Is forbidden to charge or collect from the shipper a rate greater than such established and published rate But is the ordinary shipper under any reasonable value of the situation to which the law relates thus bound at his peril, under the law in- tended to promote commerce. to cipher out before he can safely put anything that he has into commerce, all the con- fusing papers and figures that general ly make up a tariff sheets Plainly not. it seems to us"
 Tn support of this contention the court cites, AFirst-Bishop new crimi- nal laws. section 2s6."
 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 examines for themselves the tariff sheet and have all the knowledge that is necessary to an intelligent examination from what might easily follow that profession of ignorance on the part of such shipper
 would stand on a different plane from the ordinary shipper. it does not on that account follow that the ultimate question Of interest Is not the same.
 whether the shipper be a large one or small one: for the law Is the same
 for all shippers and the duty devolvtng
 on the government is the same viz:
 That before conviction there must be proof of all facts upon which the
 shippers offenss is predicated.
 This view of what is essential to constitute the offense makes 1t plain
 that the trial court was Tn error as \
 matter of law in the application to the case of the shipper of the prtn- ciples that the trial court applied in this case. And this error Is made ali Ine plainsr' hIung It from what other
 wise might be considered a mere tech ! nical error to the level of a real sub- stantial error, when the exact nature of the so-cafled tariffs published and filed, relied upon by the Rovernr,1ent
 as the lawful rate, are scrutinized: and when the rate that the trial court da. | cipnered out or these papers is com
 pared with admitted rates on other
 roads for the same product. and win
 the admitted rates on the same road
 for a like product.
 No Reference to PetroIewn.
 The tariff sheet relied upon ne th, lawful published rate filed with n, I Interstate Commerce Communication {.
 tariff sheet No. 24 of the Chicago anl St Louis Traffic Association and fh. l hrst thing to be noticed is that thi.
 farin sheet makes no reference D,
 name 10 petroleum or the products ci | nafrnIQIiun Oss hA sheet no eighteen cent rate for petro. leum or the products of petroleum an. l pears. The eighteen cent rate wa, only arrived at by process of certain cireumlocutions that is to say. on th.
 face of these tartf sheets there wa, found printed line governed by n.
 Iinois classification except as noted
 herein then by turning to . classie.
 cation adopted by the Railroad ans Warehouse Commission of IlIinois Sept. T. 1899, 1t was found that neithe, petroleum nor it's products were sel | down in fifth class, and then by turn, I ing back to tariff sheet No. 24. if va, ! found that the rate set down for ths | fifth class was eighteen cents per h,tn, dred pounds. And 50 out of this pro. cess of reference and cross reference the lawful published rate was .volx e1
 oy the trial court to be eighteen cents ANt @S~%A1S At ao 9pPcAFGu O1 KH0 kAfl | of the tariff sheets. but because by ref. erence and that not by the Intsrsta=s Commerce. Commission or the carrier
 but the Illinois Railway Commission--
 1t could be so figured out.''
 The court remarks the number a, nice judicial questions raised in ths
 case and declares that the court Is noi
 prepared to say that tarifr sheet Nc 24 really fixes the rate on petroleum
 and It's products at eighteen cents.
 The most we can say" the opiniou reads. 'fs that the question upon which judges. after full discus. sion. might very reasonably disagree. The error of the trial court in talk
 ing away from the plaintiff in errov
 its right to submit to the fury ths
 whole question of whether 1t had con.
 tatning the tarif sheet from which it
 is said to have been accepted a con.
 cession. and therefore with intent to
 violate the law--whethsr the rate paid
 was not paid in the honest before it
 was the lawful rate--is an error that
 rises into one of solid substance"
 Separates ORenses.
 Taking Iln fhe auaaffor al fr asn at h n-