The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1908-02-29
|ELKINS Ian STANDS
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT HANDS
DOWN DECISION IN GREAT
NORTHERN CASE.

lis hepedl 0elo NOS wei
said to Practically Settle Standard
Oil Case Also.
washington, Feb. 25.-The question
whether the rate law, known as the
Hepburn act, repeats section OF the
Elkins act prohibiting rebates by rail-
roads, was. involved in the case OF the
Great Northern Company against the
United States, just decided by the SUI
IRENE court of the United States
against the railroad company and
against the contention of such repeal.
The case was instituted in the Unit
ed States district court from the Dis
trict of Minnesota, which court fined
the railroad $1,000 each for fifteen vio-
lations of the first section of the
Elkins law.
The offenses against the law were
committed during the summer of 1905
and consisted ill granting concessions
to the w. P. Deveraux Company on
it's shipments of oats and corn from
Minneapolis to points in Washington.
The company admitted the concessions
and fought the prosecution on the
ground that by amending the Elkins
act so as to provide for punishment by
Imprisonment rather than by fines the
Hepburn law had so modified the or
iginal law as to accomplish it's repeal
and render punishment under it i'm
practicable.
Finding Affirmed.
Yesterdays decision was announced
by Justice White and affirmed the find
ing of the district court and the United
States circuit court of appeals.
Justice White said that the effect of
the Hepburn law in repeating the
Elkins act must be considered in the
light of section Is, revised statutes,
which provisions is that the repeal of
any statute shall not have the effect
of releasing any penalty or liability in
Cured under the statute repealed. He
said it was clear that the mere repeal
|of conflicting laws is in no way re
|pugnant to that statute, and there
could be- no contention that, standing
alone, the act had the result of destroy
ing the effect of section Is. Quoting
section 107 of the Hepburn act, which
provides that the act shall not affect
leases pending in the court" Justice
White said:
'The difficulty 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 conclu-
sion in the manner heretofore provided
by law
Words Do Not Conflict. y
"These words, we think, do not ex-
pressly or by fair implication, con-
|flict with the general rules established
by section Is revised statutes, since by
their very terms they are concerned
with the application to proceedings
pending in the courts of the United
States of the new methods of proceed
ure created by the Hepburn law. Any
other construction would necessitate
expunging the words shall be prose
cuted to a conclusion in the manner
heretofore provided by law This fol-
lows because If it were to be held
that the intent and object of the law
maker 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 general rule
of revised statutes (section 13), then
the provision as to future proceeding
would be unnecessary because the old
and unrepea1ed as well as the newly
enacted remedies would be applicable
las far as pertinent, to such pending
|causes. 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 mind was concerned with
the new remedies to causes then pend
ing in the courts, and demonstrates,
therefore, that this subject, and this
subject alone, was the matter with
which the provision in question was
intended to deal"
s4