Omaha daily bee., 1908-07-23

as a fact that the sheet had been so filed,
or submitting that question to the jury,
had the jury found that that sheet had
been SO filed, the scent rate given to
Bogardus admittedly would nave been the
lawful published rate"
same Rate by Competing Line.
The court relates hat Rogardus was
offered as a witness to prove that a tariff
describing a rate of 6H cents from Whit
ing to East St. Louis was issued by tho
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad COM
pany, a competing line, October 9. 1896,
and filed with the Interstate Commerce
commission two days later; that such
tariff sheet was among the tariff files in
possession of the plaintiff in error; and
hat the latter during the period named
shipped hereunder a large number of cars
OF petroleum and products at said rate;
and that such rate was equivalent to the
shipper of the rate OF 6 cents over the
Alton, owing to a quarter of a cent
criminal charges. all Of which evidence
was excluded as was also the offer Of the
tariff sheet itself, produced from the files
OF the Interstate Commerce commission,
and an amendment thereto filed in April
1903.
The opinion here quoted Judge lands
charge to the Jury, in which the district
judge declared that to show that the de-
PENDANT accepted a concession knowingly
It was not necessary to establish that the
defendant had actual knowledge OF the
lawful rate.
Interest Must He shown.
Al this phase of the case the opinion OF
the court OF appeals declares:
I'm this Interpretation OF the interstate
commerce law, so far as 1t relates to ship
pers. we cannot concur. The cases cited
by the government, such as those requiring
liquor sellers at their peril to know whether
the person to whom drink is sold is a
minor or within the prohibition of the act
or not, are not controlling, nor very persua.
sive. The interstate act was in
tended to promote, not to restrain trade
and commerce-to secure fair dealings IN
commerce through uniformity, not TO put
distractions I'm the way Of m
Surely. the farmer who brings his produce
to town to be shipped to the city markets
or the small merchant shipping to the
country or the householder who ships his
furniture were not meant by the interstate
commerce law to be guilty Of having &C,
, cepted a concession merely because they
took the word OF the carrier or his agent
as to what the rate was. In this respect
the shipper and the carrier stand on diff.
ferent ground. The carrier Is required By
a separate provision OF the law 10 estab
lish and publish rates and Is forbidden tC
charge or collect from the shipper a ratt
greater or less than such established anC
published rate, But is the ordinary shipper
under any reasonable view of the situation
to which the law relates, bus bound
bound at his peril under the law INTENDED
to promote commerce to cipher out before
he can safely put anything that he haI
into all the confusing papers anC
figures that generally make up a tariff
sheet2 Plainly not, it seems TO u.s."
knowledge OF Rate Is Essential.
In support of his contention the cour
cites first Bishop new criminal law, sec
ton 2S6"
Though It is :gue that large shipper
like the plaintiff in error do not usual,
take the word of a carrier as to what tn
rate is, but examine for themselves tn
tariff sheet and nave all the knoWledg
that is necessary to an iEtelligent exam
nation from which It might easily folIoI
that professions Of ignorance on the par
Of such shippers would stand on a differ
cuL plane from the ordinary shipper,
does not, on that account follow, that tn
ultimate question of intent Is not the sam
whether the shipper be a large one or
small one; for the law IL the same for a
shippers and the duty deVolying on tn
government is The same, viz: That befor
conviction there must be proof OF all tn
facts upoa which the shippers offense I
predicted.
This view OF what IL essential to oonstl
tute the o;terso makes II plain that tn
trial court MAS In error. as a meter @
law In the Duplication 10 the use Of tn
shipper as a matter OF principle that tn
trial court applied In this case. And thi
error Is made all the palmer. lifting
from what otherwise might be eonsidere
a mere technical error TO tho level Of a res
substantial error. when the exact natur
Of the so-called tariffs published and flee
relied upon by the government as the Law
ful rate. ara scTutinlzedi and when tn