Albuquerque citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1907-1909, 1908-08-21

rate clerk of the Alton, in which he
said Hollands told him that the rate
had been filed. The government met
this testimony by a great array of
circumstances which tended to dis
prove it and the jury found In favor
of the government.
The trial judge ruled that ignor-
ance on the part of shipper of what
the lawful rate was could be inter-
posed as a defense, but that 1t would
not constitute defense if 1t ap-
~ eared that the Ignorance was the
, result of neglect on the part of the
shipper or Or wilful rai1ure on the
part of the shipper to resort to the
sources of information which were
available.
The government contends that this
! is the correct construction of the
statute on this subject.
The court of appeals lays down the
rule that it is necessary for the gov
ernment to show beyond a reasonable
doubt as part of its case that the
shipper actually knew what the law
full published and filed rate was.
The government contends that this
is an impossible rule; that it is con-
trary to the purpose of the Elkins
act; that it is contrary to the general
| rule applicable in criminal cases;
| that put into effect it would make
! of the Interstate commerce act "a
mere will-o'-the-wisp of legislation,
phantom statute, destitute of
strength or substance"
! The government contends In the
petition that the court OF appeals has
| misstated not only the record as to
what evidence was admitted but has
also misstated the construction which
the trial judge placed upon the statute
and that for this reason there should
be a thorough reargument upon the
only proposition as to which the rul-
| ing of the trial judge up to the ver-
dict of guilty, is reversed
| The government contends that ar
| examination of the record will show
, that the court did not rule out the
| testimony tending to show want oi
knowledge, but that on the contrary
all proper evidence tending to show
| that the defendant was Ignorant OF
the facts with reference to the lega
rate was admitted for the considera-
ton of the jury, and that there was
\ ample evidence TO show that the de-
| feudant did know what the legal rate
was.
j in other words. the government
contends vigorously and with refer
ences to the record that the reversa
of the case, so far as the ruling oi
the trial judge Is concerned, is based
upon a missstatement by the cour
: of the record in the case as to the
admission of the evidence and to &
misunderstanding by the court oi
what the trial judge ruled with ref
erence to the admission OF evidence
and how he really charged the jury
!, The government strenuously con
tends that the effect OF the construc'
ton Of the statute announced by th'
court OF appeals IS to nullify the In
terstate Commerce act so far a.
J shippers are concerned; TO make IL
enforcement Impossible, and t.
plunge the country again into the de
. plorable condition OF railroad dis
! ordinations and favoritism which
existed prior TO its passage.
The government contends that th'
|, court Of appeals has no right TO placl
this construction upon the statute II
the face Of the fact that the yer!
! question involved in this case hai
been expressly left open by the Su
preme court In the Armour Packing
company case, recently decided by
that court. The precise question IN
| volved IN this case was stated by th'
, supreme court in that case. 1t wa!
not decided by the supreme court
however, because II was not involved
but was left open.
} The government insists that before
laying down this harsh rule and