The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-02-25
DECISION OF
 IMPORTANCE. Great Northern Railway
 Loses Suit. MUST NOW PAY BIG FINES For Granting of Relates Which
 Were Admitted.
 ----s----- The United states Supreme Court Says Hspburn Act Cannst Reiesse A.y Penalty Ineurrea Under ths
 statute Itepsaiea-

washfugton, Feb. 24--The question whether the railroad rate law. known as the Hepburn act. repeals Section one of the Elkins act. prohibiting re- bates by railroads. was involved intthe case of the Great Northern Railway Company vR the United states, which was decided today by the Supreme Court of the United States against the railroad company and against the con- tsntion of suelE repeal
 The case was-instituted in the Unit ed States District Court for the District of Minnesota. which court fined the railroad s1 ,000 each for fifteen viola tions of the frst section of the Elkins law
 The alleged offenses against the law were committed during the sum- mer of 1905. and consisted in granting concessions to the w. F. Deveraux Company on its shipments Of oats ana corn from Minneapolis, Minn.. to points in washington. The company admit ted the concessions and fought the prosecution on tho ground that by amending the EllSins act so as to pro- vide for punishment by Imprisonment, rather than by fines, the Hepburn law had 50 modified the original law as to accomplish it's repeal and render pun sshsner1t under 1t irnpracticable. To- days decision was announced by Jus tics White and affirmed the finding Of the district court and the United States Court of Appeals
 naiease of Liabsiity.
 Justice White said that the ehecs 0s the Hepburn law in repeating the Eis kins act must ha considered tn the light of section 1s. Revised Statutes. which provides that the repeal of any statute shall not have the effect Of re- leasing any penalty or liability h. curred under the statute repealed. He said it was clear that the mere repeab of conflicting laws is in no way re pugnant to that statute ana there conad be no contention that standing Alqne. the act had the result of destroying the effects Of Section t3.
 0nntinw Section 1O7 of the Hepburn act. which provides that the act shall not effect ceases pending In the courts, Justice White said: z.
 'srhe dificulty of construcnon. fha general repeating clause: But the Amendments herein provided for shall ,fot affect causes now pending in the courts of the United States, but such 1 cases shall be prosecuted to eonclu- sion in the manner heretofore provided by law
 pressly or by fair implication, conflict with the general rule established by Section I3, revised statutes, bince by their very terms, they are concerned with the application to proceedings bonding in the courts of tho pulted States Of the methods of tpF0e6duro created by the Hepburn law. Any oth- CT construction would necessltate ex- punging the words shall be prosecuted fo conclusion in the manner hereto fore provided by law This follows because. if 1t. were to be held that the intent and object of the lawmakers in eraAa I'm In ks courts of the United States was solely to depart from all but such pending cases from the general rule of revised statutes (Sectton 13). then the provis- ion as to future proceedings would be unnecessary because the unrepealed as we'll as the newly enacted remedies would be applicable. as far as perti- nent, to such pending causes
 Proviaion Not Applicable.
 The provision commanding that the new remedies 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 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 sub ject alone was the matter with which the provision in question was intended to deal.
 Tn other words when the object con- templated by the provision is aecu- rateIy fixed, the subject is freed from difficulty and not only the letter but thes spirit of the provision becomes clear; that Is to say. 1t but rnanifests the purpose of Congress to leave cases pending in the courts to be prosecuted under the prior remedies thus causing the new remedies created to be appli- cable to all controversies not at the time of the passage of the act pending ia the courts."
 Affecta Standard or Case.
 Chicago, Feb. 24.--"The decision that