Daily Arizona silver belt., 1910-03-04
Question of What Consti- tutes Single Offense
 Is Contention
RAILROAD DECLARES
 TRAINLOAD MEANT
Government Holds Each Consignment Is Punish
 able Separately

WASHINGTON, D. C., March B. How severe a punishment congress has provided for railroads guilty of violat- ing the so-called "Twenty- Eight Hour Law'' for punishing the unlawful con- finement of live stock in transportation was the basis for stubborn contest today before the supreme court of the United States. Counsel for the govern ment contend that the unit for fning railroads is the separate shipment, while the legal representatives of the Balti- fore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad com pany insist that the unit is the train; no matter of how many separate ship ments it is composed. Some features of the case resemble the $29,000,00 Standard Oil case.
 The outcome of the controversy will have far reaching effect. Many sep arate consignments of stock are carried frequently on train, so the sum of the penalty imposed by law, will vary from $lOO to many times $l00, according to the outcome of the litigation. The Bal. timore & Ohio Southwestern railroad alone appears in this case, but practi- cally every common carrier engaged in interstate commerce in the United States will feel the effect of the deci- sion.
 This controversy was begun when the United States district attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, filed eleven cases against the Baltimore X Ohio Southwestern Railroad company, claim ing that it had carried as many ship ments of livestock from shippers in various points in Illinois to Cincinnati without unloading the stock for rest, all in violation of the Twenty Eight Hour law.
 Railroad Admits Guilt
 The railroad admitted the shipment and it's detention beyond the statutory time, but it averred guilt of only one offense because all the shipments were carried in one train, and expressed a willingness to pay fine for one viola tion.
 The district court consolidated the cases and assessed single penalty, The circuit court of appeals for the Sixth district reversed that decIslon. The case then was brought to the su- preme court by the railroad. Briefs on both sides of the controversy have been filed in the court. Counsel for the railroad is headed by Judson Harmon, now governor of Ohio. Solicitor Gen eral Bowers, of the department of JUS. tice, has directed the fight on behalf of the United States.
 In the brief of the railroad counsel, it is contended that the train IS the factor of offense, because livestock IS moved in trains.
 Law Ambiguous
 of there is a confinement in cars beyond twenty-eight hours during tran sit under circumstances which constl- ute q violation of the statute, 1t must be the fault of the train,' says the brief. "Congress has not said whether the offenses shall be per head of stock, per shipment, per carload or per tram load. If congress had intended there should be a fine of $500, (the maximum penalty for one offense), for each head of stock delayed, or for each shipment delayed or for each carload delayed, 1t was easy to say so. Bearing in mind the rule of strict interpretation of penal statutes, the only reasonable construction of the statute is that the detention of all stock on the same train constitutes but one offense.
 "Congress did not deem it necessary to be so severe as to permit fine ot $500 for each shipment in tralnload containing possibly fifty shipments when single fine of $500 would answer as well. '
 Several routes lead to the conclu sion that the separate shipment was meant as the basis, the government contends.
 Contention of Government
 "Suppose cattle are loaded into cars by the carrier and kept there more than twenty eight hours without unloading betore the cars are put into any train, says Solicitor General Bowers in his brief. ''Is the train the unit of offense though there has been no train?'
 He asked the same question where cattle had been sidetracked in cars and the train proceeded. In the case ot cattle not being fed after they were unloaded he claimed the train plainly was not meant to be the unit.
 "Indeed, the word train does moi once occur in the act, he sys.
 He further contends that his point | proved by means of the provisions re garding owners consent in the eXten sion of the time from twenty-eight t' l thirtysiX hours.
 "The owner $ consent affects hls snip ment, and only his shipment, whethe it is in train with other shipment of livestock or not; and the result i that the rule of conduct for the carrie varies as to different shipments. Th shipment being the unit as to which thu carriers conduct is prescribed by stat l. E, m IL ..E IL.