Show r STANDARD OIL HELDON HELD HELDON ON COUNTS Federal Judge Landis Finds Find r Only Two Indictments to toa 2 a Be r Faultily Drawn i t f VIOLATED ANTI LAW 0 I r United Stales States Court Holds That t When lien t K lI iu a It Did Not c the 41 f U. U Chicago Jan 3 3 Only l b. two of oC the theten I ten separate demurrers made malIc by the Standard Oil on comp company It alleging cal cil d defects were granted by Judge I In the court to today today to- to day an hind and l on the Which he overruled l tho oil tru trust truEt t will have ha to stand stan l' l trial Tho oi olf company was Avas in- in on Inc Ino counts counts counts' of oC violating the trust antl trust laws and on eight of th these h comp company n was vas held to toa a answer Theio prod productions sal said l the tho court ito aro alo for me 1 of oC section l lof 1 of tho a act t approved February ID 19 1903 I known as the l w The rhe charge I is Js that tho l the tho J transportation of its property b by various va va- V. V rious ra railway compan companies at rates Ic lots less s 4 than n tho named In tho tito carriers carriers' published pub pub- 1 1 Jishe J ff Tho offenses are arc alleged to J l I 1 een committed prior pt-br rW to tho the enactment of oC tho the law approved Juno uno 29 29 1906 known own as the rate law Jaw The Thc Indictments were returned f. August 27 1906 i Killing of or Judge e Landis Tho court ruled against ng the tle defendants defendant's defendants defendant's defend defend- ants ant's contention that the Elkins law Jaw IL was enacted really to lo prohibit tho the emIL employment em em- of oC indirect t methods to obtain obtain ob ob- ob- ob 4 tam tain preferential rates It being tho the defendants defendant's contention that It was not nota a violation of tho the law I If a railway coinS compan company com com- S pan pany dealing Ung directly with a shipper gave that shipper a cut rate rale The court also ruled against t the de de- de- de iL- iL I fondants fondant's claim that the thc provision of or i the Elkins law required shippers to ad ad- ad Q here to a n. published rate was void as being LeinS' against the provision of the f interstate commerce Jaw which re required re- re ft r C carriers to tra transport property r for for- fora a r reasonable r rate tc tho the court holding holding hold hold- ing that carriers and shippers rs were both required to adhere to tho the pub pub- rate rato until such rate late was pub pub- changed change In the manner provided pro t. t I 1 by law mw t. t The court further ruled against the 1 defendants defendant's contention that the InV in- in V were bad because be tho the InterState interstate inter- inter state stale commerce law aw did not require railway companies to lo publish rates be be- tween points bc beyond the carriers carrier own line Une of pr roal holding that If a carrier z h. h having ma made c ni an arrangement with L L I c connecting lines for fOl the transportation of or property beyond its Hs own lines h md pon n publish rn q for the I 5 i 5 1 J U L I. I s such h points point's points ti th the carrier must therefore there there- fi tore fore e be held as ns to the shipping public l' l to have o t facilities for Cor the transportation t tion uon of oC property to lo s such uch points beyond S. S its own ownS line an and 1 that the requirement of oC the law Jaw applied to such uch a n case with I tho the same sante force that It applied l to a at aY t point on the carriers carriers' own o line Y I JJ Law w Binding on Con Consignees f Tho The court ruled ag t the tho defendants defendant's defendants defendant's defend defend- eten 1 ants ant's contention that the tle provision of oC tho the Interstate commerce law requiring ing ing- carriers to publish terminal r i char charges cs was not operative upon consignees cont coni con con- t holding that In respect to such 41 terminal charges Inasmuch as the con consigner 4 sl signor signer nor would have but little If iC any 1 Interest in th the th question the law Jaw plainly was wa intended to be lC binding on consignees con con- The terminal charges In ques ques- question tion consisted of largo hat amounts of 4 p charges rge that had accrued on p petroleum uin consigned d to the Standard 1 OIL c at Chicago o and which the tIle indictment charges the Lake Shore ShoreS S and Michigan Southern Railroad compan company com corn pan pany cancelled d and released to the thc thet Standard tan md Oil company compan a rebate in t respect of or the Iho transportation of or the pe petroleum rC um lt lS contended in 1 or tile me I Uni United ed States said the court that z tho the act of or Juno June 20 29 1906 did not go into effect U until after these Indictments wet wet-c returned It Is is- urged that hat tho Ri postponement was as effected b by the thea a a adoption pf pC the joint resolution by congress approved oved Juno June 30 0 That resolution provides that the rate law lawshall shall take tale effect and be in fori force c 60 4 days das after its approval by by the President President dent OC the of-the the United States Stales ij Needed Pre Presidents President's 1 Of or course the o of or this r i f resolution was was' lous But mut it wat wa was wholly wholly- Ineffective e until until approved 11 by bythe I t the President This occurred on June 30 And Anti by its Ils own terms the thea a act at att t t became effective on its approval by bythe the President one ono day before Plainly Plain j T t f It ly h there lc on Juno J 30 the resolution resolution tion was powerless to po postpone that tr which had hud already occurred on June i 29 While possibly on June 30 30 tho the resolution might operate to suspend tho the act for fOl a a. period d of ot time a and ad as asto to this thi I express no opinion the fi 1 questions presented by the demurrers to these In indictments are c to bo bc dei determined de dc- de- de i as uI if It a postponement or 1 suspension suspension sus sus- pension of the tho act had not been at at- at tempted I c After observing that tho the Elkins I law wa was repealed b by the rate rale law K I. I 1 t and that unless there was was' a statute i keeping alive for future prosecution oCe offenses 1 es which had boon been committed t r I against tho the ElkIns law prior pilot t to its us it d repeal repeat tho the court quoted section 1 IS 13 f of tho the revised statutes of ot the thc United States Stales enacted In J J Did ld Not ot Release Penally i The Tho repeal of ot any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish cx- cx any penalty for forfeiture or liability Incurred under such statute unless the repealing i act shall shaH so cx- cx t ly provide an and l such statute shall shalli i 1 bv bf tr treated a. a as IK stilt still remaining in force t a for fI tho the purpose C o of sustaining an any proper pro pro- 1 per action or 01 prosecution for COl the enforcement of oC such a penalty This law sal said the court has hns b been en attacked h ro as an unwarranted at attempt attempt at- at tempt by lW the congress that enacted It I to lull cut the tho authority of ot succeeding t congresses by limiting In advance anco the 1 IVi effect t to be he given to their l Now under the constitution each congress con con- on- on 5 gress is the equal in point of or power st S of or any predecessor or successor Therefore Therefore There There- fore no congress ha has authority to draw in the boundaries of oC tho IC legislative domain do do- 10 main to the embarrassment of an any other other oth oth- er cr congress 8 Hut But as I read sad I 13 iff H is Its not attempted It is hi lath rather l' l the substitution o of a new rule Jule to be observed ob served by the courts In the construction tion tron o 0 statutes thc thereafter cart r to bOo bo c cAI en- en I acted It seems to me rae that such tuch new ik 1 j 4 Y I 1 f. f lui 1 0 nUo is no more an fin Impairment of tho lie power Jo of or succeeding con- con grosses than titan was tho tIm previously existing ex ex- J lIng common law rule an impairment of tho ho power of preceding con con- That congress had the tho constitutional constitutional con con- power to change is plain That any succeeding con congress ress ma may abrogate the new rule and Ie restore toro tile the theold lie ol old rule Iule is equally plain That hat until such 01 old 1 rulo rule Is restored each cach succeeding succeeding succeed succeed- in ing congress intends that tho the courts ts shall be oe c gur guided cd by liy the new ne rule lle in giving IvIng Iv- Iv ing lug effect to other enactments seems to lo mo me beyond question Enforce Will Vill of Congress It is the dut duty of the court to en enforce enforce en- en force orco the will of or congress congress as expressed etl in the written en enactment In the ascertainment of or that will JIl I am not at liberty to Ignore the thc ultimate obJect object object ob ob- ob- ob of or the law That object was the thee e establishment of oC uniform railroad rates seasonable reasonable in amount The Thc former law had failed to accomplish this and was therefore strengthened Instead of being wiped 1 off ort tho the books I as having ser e served Its p purpose e. e additional and severe so liabilities were created 1 and more drastic remedies an and 1 penalties authorized For the Iho orren offense e with Hh which the defendant stands char god chat the preceding pre pro ceding Jaw law prescribed punishment punish punish- ment only oDly b by fine Tho The view entertained entertain tain e ed by resent con congress re respecting r ll n m t e J Ji provision authorizing the a additional penalty of or Imprisonment in th tho And nd the tho court is a asked to hold that this same sarno congress cong doll ber- ber atel Intended to pardon all te ted prior offenders whose whore conduct It was more than all other cau causes es combined that moved congress to enact tho the rigid and reaching far measure of oC Juno June 29 My Iy opinion is that whereas at common common cornmon com corn mon law Jaw the repeal of a a. penal statute extinguished ecUng all penalties for or offenses against ag its provisions in tho absence of an express saving savinI clause under section 13 the repeal of a a. penal statute statute- extinguishes no such penalties In the absence of ot an any express extinguishing extinguishing- clause which the rate rale law docs does not contain that the tho so called saving saving- clause in section 10 was inserted for forthe forthe forthe the sole bole purpose of differently prescribing ing the rule of ot procedure that should control the tho prosecution of causes then lien pending in various stages in tho courts thus avoiding the lie confusion and cont controversy controversy con con- t which as experience has shown must otherwise have resulted 1 The court overruled the tho demurrer to eight of oC the Indictments and sus- sus stained it as to lo two on technical grounds I I U |