The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-07-22
Judge lands REVERSED.

lawful published rate. The court re-
lates that Bogardus was offered as a
witness to prove that a tariff describ-
ing rate of 6A cents from Whiting
70 East St Louis was issued by the
chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway
company, competing line, October 9,
1885, and filed with the interstate COM
merce commission. two days later; that
such tariff sheet was among the tariff
nles in possession of the plaintiff in
error; and that 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. ow-
ing to quarter of a cent terminal
charges, all of which evidence was ex-
cluded as was also the offer of the tar
IN sheet itself. produced from the files
OF the interstate commerce commission
and an amendment thereto filed in
April, 1903"
The opinion here quotes Judge Ian
dis charge to the jury in which the
district judge declared that to show
that the defendant accepted a conces-
sion knowingly it was not necessary
to establish that the defendant had
actual knowledge of the lawful rate.
At this phase of the case the opin-
ion of the court of appeals declares:
Cannot Concur.
'In this Interpretation of the inter-
state commerce law, so far as it re-
lates to shippers, we can not 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 min
or within the prohibition of the act or
not. are not controlling, nor, very per-
suasive. The interstate commerce act
was intended to promote, not to re-
strain trade and commerce-to secure
fair dealings in commerce through un-
iformity, not to put distractions in the
way of commerce. Surely the farmer
who brings his produce to town to be
shipped to the city markets or the
small merchant shipping to the coun-
try or the householder, who ships his
furniture were not meant by the inter-
state commerce law to be guilty of
because they took the word of the car
rier or his agent as to what the rate
was. In this respect the shipper and
the carrier stand on different ground.
The carrier is required by a separate
! provision of the law to establish and
publish rates and is forbidden to charge
or collect from the shipper a rate
greater or less than such established
and published rate. But is the ordin-
airy shipper, under any reasonable
view of the situation to which the law
relates, thus bound-bound at his per-
il. under the law intended to promote
commerce, to cipher out before he can
safely put anything that he has into
commerce. all the confusing papers
and figures that generally make up a
tariff sheet? Plainly not, it seems to
U.S.
In support of this contention. the
court cites first Bishop New criminal
law. section 2S6.'
Though it is true that large ship
pers like the plaintiff in error do not
usually take the word of a carrier as
| to what the rate is. but examine for
themselves the tariff sheet and have
| all the knowledge that is necessary to
an intelligent examination from which
it might easily follow that professions
of ignorance on the part of such ship
pers would stand on a different plane
from the ordinary shipper it does not
| on that account follow that the ulti-
! mate question of intent is not the
same whether the shipper be a large
one or a small one; for the law is
the same for all shippers and the duty
| devolving on the government is the
same viz: That before conviction there
must be proof of all the facts upon
| which the shippers offense is predi-
| Gated.
| Where Court Erred.
This view of what is essential to
| constitute the offense makes it plain
that the trial court was in error, as a
\ matter of law in the application to
the case of the shipper as a matter ol
| principle that the trial court applied
| in this case. And this error is made
| all the palmer, lifting it from what
| otherwise might be considered a mere
| technical error to the level of a real
| substantial error, when the exact ma
| ture of the so-called tariffs published
| and filed, relied upon by the govern
ment as the lawful rate, are scrutiniz-
| ed: and when the rate that the tria
| court deciphered out of these papers
| is compared with admitted rats or
/ other roads for the same product and
with the admitted rates on the same
| road for a like product The tariff
sheet relied upon as the lawful pub
lished rate filed with the interstate
commerce commission is tariff shee'
No. "a. of the Chicago and ST. Loui:
| Traffic association and the first thins
to be noted is that this tariff sheei
makes no reference by name to petrol
cum or the products of petroleum. OF
the face of that tariff sheet no IS cen
| rate for petroleum or the products O.
petroleum appears. The Is cent rat,
was only arrived at by a process O
circumlocution; that is to say, on tn,
face Of these tariff sheets there wa:
found a printed line governed by I'LL
nois classification, except as noted
herein;' thereby turning to a classic
cation adopted by the railroad ant
warehouse commission of Illinois Sep
tember Z. 1899, it was found that petrol
cum and its products were set down il
the fifth class; and then turning bacl
to tariff sheet No. "a, it was found tha
the rate set down for the fifth clas
was is cents per 100 pounds.
| How the Rate Was Found.
And so out of this process of refer
ence and cross reference the Lawful
published rate was evolved by the tria
court to be Is cents, not because it 8
appeared on the face of the tarif
sheets, but because by reference t
other sheets-sheets fixing, not rates
but classifications, and that not by tn
interstate commerce commission or tn
carrier. but the Illinois railway com
mission-it could be so figured ont"