Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-03-04
Big QUESTION AS TO PUNISH
MENr OF RAILROADS BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT.
EFFECT OF FoRTY-EIGHr HouF.
LAW TO BE DErERMIN :
Railroads Argue Fines Should Be =
sessed For Each Train Load -,
Government That Penalty Should b.
Inflicted. For Each Shipment DE
cison Of Far Reaching Effect.

| Washington, March Allow severe
a punishment congress has provided
for railroads guilty of violating the So
called "twcnty-eight hour law" for
furnishing the unlawful confinement of
| livestock in transportation was the
basis for a stubborn contest today be-
fore the supreme court of the United
States. Counsel for the government
contend that the unit for finng rail-
roads is the separate shipment, while
the legal representatives of the Balt-
more & Ohio Southwestern Railroad
Company insist that the unit is the
train. no matter of hoy many separate
shipments it is composed. Some feat
ures of the case resemble the S29, ,00O-
600 Standard Oil case.
The outcome of the controversy will
have far-reaching effect. Many sep
arate consignments of stock are car
ried frequently in one train so the sum
of the penalty, imposed by the law.
will vary from 500 to many times
$780, according to the outcome Of the
litigation. The Baltimore & Ohio
Southwestern railroad alone appears in
this case, but practically every common
carrier engaged in Interstate COM
merce in the United States will feel
the effect of the decision.
The Questions Involved.
This controversy was begun when
the United States district attorney for
the southern district of Ohio filed
eleven cases against the Baltimore &
Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company,
claiming that 1t had carried as many
shipments of live stock from shippers
| in various points in Illinois to Cincin-
natl without unloading the stock for
rest, all in violation of the twenty
eight hour law.
| The railroad admitted the shipment
and its detention beyond the statutory
time but it averred guilt OF only one
ofense because all the shipments Were
carried in one train, and expressed a
Willingness to pay a fine for one viola
| tion.
| The district court consolidated the
cases and assessed a single penalty.
The circuit court of appeals for the
Sixth district reversed that decision.
The case then was brought to the SUI
preme court by the railroad. Briefs on
both sides of the controversy have
|
the railroad is headed by Judson Har-
mon now governor of Ohio. Solicitor
General Bowers. of the department of
justice, has directed the fight on be-
half of the United States.
Train Load or Car Load.
| In the brief Of the railroad coun-
sci, it is contended that the train is the
factor OF offenses, because live stock
is moved in trains.
eff there be a confinement in cars
beyond twenty-four hours during
transit under circumstances which con-
stittte 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 car load, or per train
| load. If congress had intended there
| should be fine of $500 (the maximum
| penalty for one offense). for each head
| of stock delayed, or for each ship
ment delayed or for each car load de-
| layed it was easy to say so. Bearing
| in mind the rule of strict interpreta-
ton of penal statutes. the only rea-
sonable construction Of the statute is
| that the detention of all stock on the
same train constitutes but one offense.
Congress did not deem it neces-
| sary to be SO severe to permit fine
| Of $500 for each shipment in a train
| load containing possibly fifty ship
| ments, when single fine Of $500
would answer as we'll"
The Governments Contention.
Several routes lead to the conclusion
that the separate shipment was meant
as a basis, the government contends.
Suppose cattle are loaded into cars
by the carriers and kept there more
than twenty eight hours without un-
loading before the cars are put into
any train," says Solicitor General
Bowers in his brief. us the train the