Los Angeles herald., 1908-02-25
COURT DEALS
AHARD BLOW
TO REBA7ERS
ELKINS AND HEPBURN LAWS
NOT CONFLICTING
HIGHEST TRIBUNAL DECIDES
AGAINST RAILROAD
Justice White of United States SUI
preme Bench Writes Decision Up-
holding Conviction of the
Great Northern

BY Associated Press.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24.-The ques-
tion whether the rate law, known as
the Hepburn act, repeals section one
of the Elkins act prohibiting rebates
by railroads, as involved in the case
of the Great Northern company versus
the United States, was decided today
by the supreme court of the United
States against the railroad company
and against the contention Of such re-
peal.
The case was instituted in the United
States district court from the district
of Minnesota, which court fined the
railroad $1,000 each for fifteen violations
of the first section of the Elkins law.
The alleged offenses against the law
were committed during the summer of
1905 and consisted In granting conces-
sions to the w. p. Devereaux company
on it's shipments of oats and corn from
Minneapolis to points in Washington.
Concessions Admitted
The company admitted the conces-
sions and fought the prosecution on the
ground that by amending the Elkins
| act so as to provide for punishment
by imprisonment rather than by fine
the Hepburn law so modified the orig
| inal law as to accomplish its repeal and
render punishment under it imprac-
ticable. Todays decision was an
nounced by Justice White and affirmed
| the finding of the district court and the
| United States circuit court of appeals.
| Justice White said the effect of the
Hepburn law in repeating the Elkins
act must be considered in the light of
section 10, r. s., which provision is
| that the repeal of any statute shall not
have the effect of releasing any penal
| ty or liability incurred under the
statute repealed. He said it was clear
| that the mere repeal of conflicting laws
is in no way repugnant to that statute
| and there could be no contention that.
! standing alone. the act had the result
of destroying the effect of section %.
! Quoting section 107 of the Hepburn
! act, which provides that the act shall
! not affect eases pending in the
courts" Justice White said: 'The diff
! ffculty of construction, If any, arises
| from the word following the general
repeating clause. but the amendments
| herein provided for shall not affect
causes now pending in the courts of
| the United States, but such causes shall
be prosecuted to conclusion in the man
ner heretofore provided by law
No Conflict Shown
"These words, we think, do not ex-
pressly or by fair implication conflict
with the general rules established by
section 13, revised statutes, since by
their very terms they are concerned
with the application to proceedings
rending in the courts with the new
methods of procedure created by the
Hepburn law Any other construction
would necessitate expunging the words
shall be prosecuted to a conclusion in
the manner heretofore provided by law.
This follows because If it were to
he held that the intent and object of
the lawmaker in dealing with causes
pending in the courts of the United
States was solely to depart, as to all
but such pending causes, from the gem
eral rule of revised statutes (section
13), then the provision as to future
proceedings would be unnecessary be-
cause the old and unrepealed as well
as the newly enacted remedies would
be applicable, as far as pertinent to
such pending cases.
Under Prior Remedies
"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 the legislative mini
| was concerned with the new remedies
to causes then pending in the courts,
end demonstrates, therefore, that this
subject, and this subject alone, was
the matter with WHICH Ile pTONlSiOn III
question was intended to deal.
TN other words. when the object con-
templated by the provision is accu-
rately fixed the subject is freed from a
difficulty and not only the letter but
the spirit of the provision becomes
clear; that is to say, 1t but manifests
the purpose of congress to leave causes
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
III the courts.
THUS the argument that by the APP
plication of the elementary rules by
which the inclusion of one might be
considered as the exclusion of the other
it follows that the power to further
prosecute all but causes then pending
IN the court was destroyed by the Hep
burn law because pending causes are
enumerated in section 10 and hence not
saved by revised statutes, section 49,
simply assumes that the provision of
section 10 was intended to save the
right to further prosecute the causes
then pending In the courts and dis
regards the fact that the provision as
to pending causes was solely addressed
| to the remedies to be applied in the
future carrying on of such causes"