Omaha daily bee., 1908-02-25
REBATE LAW HOLDS GOOD
Hepburn Act Does Not Repeal It, Says
Supreme Court.
MUCH HINGES UPON DECISION
Federal Tribunal Decides Great
Northern Company Must Pay
I'm Holly Contested Min
nesOta Case.
JCH HINGES UPON DECISION

WASHINGTON, Feb. A.--The question
whether the railroad rate law known as
the Hepburn act repeals section one of the
Elkins act prohibiting rebates on railroads.
was involved in the case of the Great North
ern railway company against the United
States which was decided today by the SUI
preme court OF the United States against
the railroad company and against the con-
tention of such appeal.
The case was instituted in the United
States district court for the District OF Min
nesota, which court fined the railroad
1900 each for fifteen violations of the
first section of the Elkins law.
The alleged offenses against the law were
committed during the summer of 1906 and
consisted Of granting concessions to the
W. p. Deveraux company on its 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 i'm
prisonment rather than by fines the Hep
burn act had so modified the original law
as to accomplish its repeal and render
punishment under it impracticable To-
days decision was announced by Justice
White and affirmed the finding Of the dis
trict court and the United States circuit
court of appeals.
Opinion of Justice White,
Justice White said that the effect Of the
Hepburn law in repeating the Elklns act
must be considered in the light of section
13 of the revised statutes, which provides
that the repeal of any statute shall not
have the effect Of releasing any party of
liability incurred under the statute repealed.
He said 1t was clear that the mere repeal
of conflicting laws is in no way repugnant
to that statute and there could be no con-
tention that standing alone the act had the
result of destroying the effect of section
13. Quoting section 1O7 of the Hepburn act,
which provides that the act shall not af-
feet eases pending in the courts" Justice
White said:
The difficulty of construction, IL 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
TO conclusion in the manner heretofore pro-
vided by law" These words, we think, do
not, expressly, or by fair Implication, con-
flict with the general rule established by
section 13 revised statutes, since by. their
very terms, they are concerned with the
application of proceedings pending. in the
courts of the United States of the new
methods of procedure created by the Hep
burn law. Any other construction would
necessitate expungtng the words "shall be
prosecuted to conclusion in the manner
heretofore provided by law" This follows,
because II II were to be held that the in
tent and object OF the law maker in deal
ing with cases pending in the courts of
the United States" was solely to depart in
all but such pending cases. from the gem
eral rule of revised statutes (section 19,
then the provision as to future proceedings
would be unnecessary, because the old and
unrepealed as well as the newly enacted
pertinent to such pending causes. The pro-
vision commanding that the new remedies
should not be applicable to cases then pen
ding 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
confusion of uncertainty which might be
to cases then pending in the courts and
therefore, that this subject
and this snub1ect alone, was the matter
which the provision in question was In
tended to deal. In other words, when The
object contemplated by the provision is
accurately fixed, the subject is freed from
and not only the letter, but the
is to say 1t but manifests the purpose OF
congress to leave causes uendng in the
courts to be prosecuted under the prior
thus causing the new remedies
created to be applicable to all controver-
sizes not at the time of the passage of the
act pending In the courts. And all the
arguments relied upon to sustain the theory
that the power to prosecute for past
offenses not then pending in the courts
was abrogated by the Hepburn law, rests
In substance upon the disregard of the true
of the provision of section 10