Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-07-22
HIGHER TRIBUNAL
REvERSES lands
Continued from First Pake)

trial court that the number of onenses
is the number of carloads of property
transported irrespective of whether eacn
carload is the whole or the part only or
single transaction. resulting In a snip
ment; and j..
Thirdly. Whether in the imposition OF
the fine named the trial court abused the
discretion vested in the court.
The Published Rates.
I'VE shall take up these subjects in the
order stated. the first being whether the
shipper can, without error. be convicted
of accepting a concession from lawtul
published rate. even though it Is no.
shown as bearing on the matter of intent
that the shipper at the time of acceptlns
such concession knew what the law1us
published rate actually was-a view VI
the law that is embodied in the charge,
and carried out in the ruling, exciudins
certain proffered testimony. 1ncluoihs
that Of one Edward Bogardus, who, pc
ing in absolute charge of the traffic ar
fairs OF the plaintiff in error during the
period covered by the transaction. onereo
to testify that during that period he dio
not know anything about AN 1S-cent rate
over the Alton railroad; that his atten-
ton had never been called to any such
rate by any person or by the examination
OF any document and that 1t was MS I'M
derstanding and belief, based on what ne
the Alton railroad, that the. rate over the
Alton road was O cents. and that such
rates had been filed with the Interstate
commerce commission. ~. -,
Hollands. who was called by the gov.
eminent, had previously testified that he
had no recollection Of telling Bogardus
that the six-cent rate. commodity rate.
had been filed with the interstate com
merce commission. But answering on MS
voir dire. the jury being excused. Hollands
ftrrfh hat cf t~I xHn< IA CENTS
per one hundred pounds as the oil rate
between Writing and East st. LOUIS:
that he regarded a certain application
sheet which covered Whiting at chicago
rates and the sheet for Chicago. taken to-
gether. as showing ,six-cent COMMONLY
rate: that whenever he spoke Of the rate
on this commodity, between Whiting and
East st. Louis he had In mind those pa
pers, and that if he had been asked Dy
Bogardus or anybody else whether there
was a rate between Whiting and East ST
Louis he would have answered that there
was, and that it was filed and that such
rate was cents which evidence thus
proffered was excluded by the court Tor
the sole reason that. as matter or 1act.
as the court mot the jury found the fact
to be, the application sheet containing this
six-cent commodity rate had not been f1ied
with the interstate commerce commls-
sion. Had the court found as fact tnat
the sheet had been SO filed. or submitting
found that that sheet had been so hied.
the six-cent rate given to Bogardus ad-
mittedly would have been the lawful pup
lished rate"
Exclusion of Evidence.
The court relates that Bogardus was
offered as a witness to prove that a tariff
describing rate of 6A cents from Whit
ing to East st. Louis was issued by the
~ t. Dof1r
Company, a competing line. October q,
1908. and filed with the interstate COM
merce commission two days later; that
such tariff sheet was among the tarin
filed in possession of the plaintiff In
error, and that the latter during the
period named shipped hereunder large
number of cars OF petroleum and products
at said rate, and that such rate was
equivalent to the shipper rate Of cents
over the Alton owing to a quarter Of a
cent terminal charges, all OF which evil
dence was excluded, as was also the
offer of the tariff sheet Itself, produced
from the files Of the interstate commerce
commission, and an amendment thereto
filed in April, 1903.
Defendants Actual Knowledge.
The opinion here quotes Judge Lands
charge to the jury. in which the district
Judge declared that to show that the
defendant accepted a concession know
ingly it was not necessary to establish
that the defendant had actual knowledge
of the lawful rate.
On this phase of the case the opinion
of the court Of appeals declares:
I'm this Interpretation of the inter
state commerce law, SO far as 1t relates
to shippers. we cannot concur. The cases
cited by the government such as those re-
quiring liquor sellers at their peril TO
know whether the person to whom drink
is sold is a minor or within the proh1bi-
ton of the act or not. are not con-
trolling, nor very persuasive.
1.-The interstate commerce act was not
intended to promote nor restrain trade
and commerce-to secure fair dealings In
commerce through uniformity. 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
country, or the householder who ships his
furniture, were not meant by the inter-
state commerce law to be guilty of hav-
ing accepted concession merely because
they took the word Of the carrier or his
agent as to what the rate was
Duty Of the Shipper.
I'm this respect the shipper and the car
rier stand on different ground. The car
rier is required by a separate provision of
is forbidden to charge or collect from the
shipper a rate greater or less than such
established and published rate. But is the
ordinary shipper under any reasonable
view OF the situation to which the law re-
lates thus bound-bound at his peril, I'M
der the law intended to promote COM
merce. 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, 1t seems to u.s.
Judge Lands Criticised.
AS to whether Judge Lands in imposing
the monumental fine abused the discre-
ton vested in the court the court opines:
Briefly stated, the reason for the trial
court for imposing this sentence was
because after conviction and before SEN
tence 1t was brought out that
the capital stock Of the Standard Oil
Company Of Indiana. the defendant be-
n1rrfx ,-;n niv 1lr, -,