Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-03-04
BIG OR LITTLE FINE?
TWenty-Eight-Hour Law Pen
atty to Be Defined.
BEFORE SUPREME COURT
Railroads Contend for Train" as
Unit of Offending.
CONGRESS FAILED TO BE EXACT
Government Holds That Each Ship
ment Should Be Basis on Which
to Compute Fines.
CONGRESS FAILED TO BE EXACT

To determine how severe a punishment
Congress has provided for railroads guilty
of violating the so-called twenty eight
hour law which governs the time of the
confinement of live stock in transporta-
ton. was the basis for a stubborn contest
TODAY before the Supreme Court of the
United States.
Counsel for the government contend that
the unit for filming railroads is the sepa-
rate shipment. Legal representatives of
the Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern
Railroad Company insist that the unit is
the train, no matter of how many sepa-
rate shipments it is composed. Some
features of the case resemble the twenty
dollar Standard Oil case.
The outcome of the controversy will
have a far-reaching effect. Many sepa-
rate consignments of stock are carried
frequently in one train, so the sum of the
penalty imposed by the law will vary
from 500 to many times 500. according
to the outcome OF the litigation.
Railroad Tests Law.
The Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern
railroad alone appears in this case. Prac-
tically every common carrier engaged in
| commerce III united states,
however will feel the effect of the de-
cision.
This controversy was begun when the
United States district attorney for the
southern district of Ohio filed eleven ca SEES
against the Baltimore and Ohio South
western Railroad Company. claiming that
it had carried as many shipments of live
stock from shippers in various points in
Illinois to Cincinnati without unloading
the stock for rest, all in violation of the
ty-eight-hour law.
The railroad admitted the shipment and
its detention beyond the statutory time.
1t averred guilt Of only one offense. be-
cause all the shipments were carried in
one train. Willingness to pay fine for
one violation was expressed
The district court consolidated the cases
and assessed a single penalty. The cir
cult court of appeals for the sixth dis
trict reversed that decision. The case
then brought to the Supreme Court
by the railroad.
Briefs on both sides of the controversy
have been filed with the court. Counsel
for the railroad is headed by Judson Har-
mon. now Governor of Ohio Solicitor
General Bowers of the Department of Jus
tice has directed the fight on behalf of
the United States.
"Train Is Unit" Says Railway.
In the brief of the railroad counsel it is
contended that the train is the factor of
offenses, because live stock is moved in
trains.
II there he confinement in cars be-
yond twenty eight hours during transit
under circumstances which constitute a
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
If Congress had intended there should
be fine of 500 Uhe maximum penalty
for one offense) for each head of stock
delayed or for each shipment delayed,
or for each carload delayed, il 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 1t necessary
to be so severe as to permit a fine of
$500 for each shipment In a trainload,
a single fine of 500 would answer as
we'll
Reasoning Of Government.
Several routes lead to the conclusion
that the separate shipment was meant
as the basis, the government contends.
Suppose cattle are loaded into cars
by the carrier and kept there more than
twenty-eight hours without unloading
before the cars are put into any traih.'
says Solicitor General Bowers in his
brief. lis 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 Of 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 not once
occur in the act" he says.
He further contends that his point is
proved by means Of the provisions re-
garding owners consent to the extension
OF time from twenty-eight to thirty-six
hours.
The owners consent affects his ship
ment, and only his shipment, whether ii
is train with other shipments of live
stock or not. The result is that the
rule of conduct for the carrier varies as
to different shipments.
The shipment being the unit to
which the carriers conduct is prescribed
by statute, IT must equally be the unit of
the carriers misconduct through viola
ton OF the prescribed rule Of conduct con-
corning the shipment
The court may take some time before
handing down a decision in the case.