The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-03-05
TWENTY-E|GHT HOUR
LAW BEING TESTED
Measure of Vast Importance to
StOckmen and Railroads Be-
fore l. 5. Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, March f.-How Sc
we're punishment congress has provided
for railroads guilty Of violating the So
called twenty eight hour law" for pun
lshinS the unlawful confinement of live
stock in transportation was the basis OF
stubborn contest today before the su-
preme court oil the United States.
Counsel for the government contend
that the unit for hnine railroads Is the
separate shipment, while the legal rep
Tesentatives Of the Baltimore & Ohio
southwestern Railroad company insist
that the unit is the train. no matter of
how many separate shipments IL is COM
posed. Some features OF the case re-
semblc the S29 600 600 STANDARD oil case
The outcome OF the controversy Will
have far-reaching effect Many sepa-
rate conslSnments of stock are carried
the penalty imposed by the law VIII vary
from Sl09 10 many times 500. accord
ing to the outcome OF the litigation.
The Baltimore & Ohio Southwestc TIL
railroad alone appeared in this case, but
practically every common carrier en-
gagged in interstate commerce In the
United states will fee! the effect OF the
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. claim
ing that II had carried as many ship
ments OF livestock from shippers in
rous points in Illinois TO Cincinnati with
out unloading the stock for rest all in
violation Of the twenty eisht-hour law.
The railroad admitted the shipment and
It's detention beyond the statutory time,
but II aNerred Suilt Of only one oifcnsc.
because all ,hc shipments were carried
in one train and expressed n willingness
TO pay a fine for one violation.
The district court consolidated tho
cases and assessed a single penalty. The
circuit court of appeals FOR the sixth DIS
lrict reversed the decision. The case
then was brought to the supreme court
nj 81
Briefs on both sides of the controversy
have been filed. Counsel for the rail-
road is headed by hudson Harmon now
governor of Ohio. while Solicitor General
Bowers OF the department OF justice has
directed the fight on behalf OF the Upitcd
States.
In the briet Of the railroad counsel IL
is contendcd that the train Is the factor
l.of offcnse. because livestock is moved in
trains
III there be confinement i'm cars be-
| vond twcnty-cicht hours during transit
under circumstances which constitute a
| violation of the statute. II must bc the
| fault oil the train" says the brief. Con
gross has not said whether The offcnscs
shall be per head or stock, per shipment.
| per car load or per train load, If con-
gress had intended there should he a
| linc or S600 (thc maximum penalty for
one offense). for each head OF stock de-
| ayed. or for each shipment delayed or
! for each car load dc aged, III was easy
| TO say so Bearing i'm mind the rule Of
1
| the only reasonable construction Of the
| statute is that the detention OF AL stock
| on the same train constitutes but one Of
| rensc Congress did not deem II neccs
saTV TO Dc so severe as 10 permit a fine
| OF $500 for each shipment in train load
containing possibly nifty shipments, when
a single fine of $500 would answer as
Welt"
Several lines of argument lead TO the
conclusion that the separate shipment
WAS meant the basis. the government
contends.
suppose cattle arc loaded into cars by
tho carrier and kept there more Than
! twenty eight hours without unloading
before tho cars are put into any train,
SAYS Solicitor General Bowers in his
brief. lis the train the unit of oGcnse,
| though there has been no tCain?'
| lie asked the same question where cat
| tie had been Sidctrackcd in cars and tho
| train proceeded. In the case nf cattle
not being fed after they were unloadcd,
he claimed the train plainly was not
meant TO he the unit
| Indeed the word train does not once
occur in the act" he says. lie further
contends that his point is proved by
| means OF the provisions regarding owner 5
| consent TO the extension OF the tlmC
| from twenty eight 10 thirtysiN hours
| The owners consent affects his snip
mcnt and only his Shipment whether II
| is in a train with other shipments ol
| livestock or not. and the result Is tua'
the rule of conduct Tor the carrier varies
as Ia different shipments. The shipment
being the unit TO which the carrier
| conduct is prescribed by statute. It musl
| equally be the unit OF the carrier mis-
conduct concerning the shipment
| The court may take some time before
| handing down decision in the case.