SECTION 10. $253. Penalties for violations of act by carriers.... 257. 258. A peaceable strike not a violation of the section.. Page. 294 295 296 296 297 298 259. Removal of indicted persons to other jurisdictions for trial.... 299 259a. Limitation of criminal prosecution under the Act........ 800 $253. Penalties for violations of act by carriers, etc.SEC. 10. (As amended March 2, 1889, as prior to amendment of 1903, infra.) That any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or, whenever such common carrier is a corporation, any director or officer thereof, or any receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or person, acting for or employed by such corporation, who, alone or with any other corporation, company, person, or party, shall wilfully do or cause to be done, or shall willingly suffer or permit to be done, any act, matter or thing in this act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or who shall aid or abet therein, or shall wilfully omit or fail to do any act, matter, or thing in this act required to be done, or shall cause or willingly suffer or permit any act, matter, or thing so directed or required by this act to be done not to be so done, or shall aid or abet any such omission or failure, or shall be guilty of any infraction of this act, or shall aid or abet therein, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any district court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such offense was committed, be subject to a fine of not to exceed five thousand dollars for each offense: Provided, That if the offense for which any person shall be convicted as aforesaid shall be an unlawful discrimination in rates, fares, or charges, for the transportation of passengers or property, such person shall, in addition to the fine herein before provided for, be liable to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not exceeding two years, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or, whenever such common carrier is a corporation, any officer or agent thereof, or any person acting for or employed by such corporation, who, by means of false billing, false classification, false weighing, or false report of weight, or by any other device or means, shall knowingly and wilfully assist, or shall willingly suffer or permit, any person or persons to obtain transportation for property at less than the regular rates then established and in force on the line of transportation of such common carrier, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction within the district in which such offense was committed, be subject to a fine of not exceeding five thousand dollars, or imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court, for each offense. Any person and any officer or agent of any corporation or company who shall deliver property for transportation to any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, or for whom as consignor or consignee any such carrier shall transport property, who shall knowingly and wilfully, by false billing, false classification, false weighing, false representation of the contents of the package, or false report of weight, or by any other device or means, whether with or without the consent or connivance of the carrier, its agent or agents, obtain transportation for such property at less than the regular rates then established and in force on the line of transportation shall be deemed guilty of fraud, which is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction within the district in which such offense was committed, be subject for each offense to a fine of not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court. If any such person, or any officer or agent of any such corporation or company, shall, by payment of money or other thing of value, solicitation, or otherwise, induce any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or any of its officers or agents, to discriminate unjustly in his, its, or their favor as against any other consignor or consignee in the transportation of property, or shall aid or abet any common carrier in any such unjust discrimination, such person or such officer or agent of such corporation or company shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction within the district in which such offense was committed, be subject to a fine of not exceeding five thousand dollars, or imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court, for each offense; and such person, corporation, or company shall also, together with said common carrier, be liable, jointly or severally, in an action on the case to be brought by any consignor or consignee discriminated against in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction for all damages caused by or resulting therefrom. 254. Amendments of 1889.-This section as originally enacted contained only the general penalty clause in the first paragraph. By the amendment of March 2, 1889 all the remainder of the section as above set forth was added, includ ing the specific penalties for false billing, classification, weighing, etc., recommended by the Commission. Very important amendments were made by the act of February 19, 1903 (infra, 310), a summary whereof for convenience is here given. § 255. Summary of amendments of 1903.- First, a railroad corporation itself shall be liable for prosecution in all cases where the officers and agents were liable under the former law, such officers and agents continuing to be liable as heretofore. Second, the penalty by imprisonment is abolished, and the only punishment provided for offenses, whether committed before or after the passage of the amendatory Act, is the imposition of fines, which were limited from a minimum. of $1,000 to a maximum of $20,000. Third, the published tariff is made the standard of lawfulness as to effects of criminal misconduct, and any departure therefrom is declared to be a misdemeanor. Fourth, jurisdiction of the prosecution of offenses against the Act is given to any court of the United States having jurisdiction of crime within the district within which the violation was committed, or through which the transportation may have been conducted. In the law before the amendment, the jurisdiction was limited to the district wherein the offense was committed. It is specifically provided also that in construing and enforcing the provisions of the Act, the omission or failure of any person acting for or in the employ of any carrier acting within the scope of his employment, should in every instance be deemed to be the act of omission. or failure of such carrier. § 256. Illegal combinations under section 10.-The most important application of section 10 has been made in connection with labor combinations, and attempted boycotts of interstate railroad traffic by employees of other interstate railroads on account of strikes among classes of employees of such railroads. The law of conspiracy has been invoked under section 5440 R. S. U. S., which provides that if two or more persons conspire to commit an offense against the United States, and one or more of such parties do any act to effect that object for the conspiracy, all parties to the conspiracy shall be liable to the penalty prescribed. (Supra, chapter IV.) See United States v. Stephens, 44 Fed. Rep. 132, where the statute was applied to the case of a conspiracy to commit acts made misdemeanors by section 13 of the Census Act. In the case of Toledo, A. A. & N. W. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 730, the court, Taft, J., held that Rule No. 12 of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, then. in force, declaring that the handling of the property of a railroad, when the Brotherhood was at issue with such company, was in violation of the obligation of the Brotherhood, constituted a combination to induce the violation of section 3 of the Interstate Commerce Act, providing for the interchange of facilities by railroads engaged in interstate commerce, and made criminal by section 10, and that the Chief of the Brotherhood and all members engaged in enforcing that rule were equally guilty with him as principals, and all guilty of conspiring to commit an offense against the United States subject to the penalties of section 5440, R. S. U. S. The Court granted a mandatory injunction to compel the interchange of facilities. It was said however that the defendants could avoid obedience to the injunction by actually ceasing to be employees of the company, although if they left the service of the company under rule 12 of their order so as to compel the defendant company to injure the complainant company, they were doing an unlawful act and rendering themselves liable in damages for any injuries which are thereby inflicted, and might be liable to a criminal penalty. The arm of a Court of equity could not be extended by mandatory injunction to compel the performance of personal services. See 54 Fed. Rep. 746, where one of the engineers was adjudged guilty of contempt. See also C., B. & Q. R. Co. v. B. C. R. & N. R. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 481. See also Arthur v. Oakes, 11 C. C. A. 209, 63 Fed. Rep. 310. In Beers v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 244, the court made the same holding as to rule 12 of the Brotherhood, and as the railroad was operated by a receiver, the court said the receiver could not refuse to receive from and deliver to a connecting road, although by doing so his own road may be involved in a strike with its employees. 8257. The incidental interference with commerce by a peacable strike not a violation of the section. While the employees of a railroad corporation cannot lawfully combine to compel their employer to discriminate against the traffic of a connecting railroad for any reason, the incidental interference with interstate traffic resulting from a combined cessation of employment by railroad employees for the purpose of bettering their own conditions of service does not constitute a criminal conspiracy or an offense under section ten of the Interstate. Commerce Act. See Arthur v. Oakes, 11 C. C. A. 209, 63 Fed. Rep. 310. The point was directly ruled by Judge Adams in the case of the Wabash Railroad Co. v. Hannahan et al. 121 Fed. Rep. 563, where the court dissolved a temporary injunction granted without notice against the officers of the brotherhoods of trainmen and firemen restraining them from ordering a strike on the Wabash Railroad. The Court said that while the employees, the members of the brotherhoods, had the right to combine in leaving their employment, the court would retain jurisdiction of the case so that in the event of any molestation of or interference with interstate commerce by them after leaving employment, the lawful powers of the court could be invoked to restrain such interference. See also Hopkins v. United States, 171 U. S. 578, 43 L. Ed. 290, 296; Taft, J. in Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. O. Railroad, 62 Fed. Rep. 803. This subject of what constitutes a conspiracy in restraint of trade has been more extensively discussed in connection with the more comprehensive provisions of the so-called Anti-Trust Law of 1890, infra, § 314 et seq, See also charge to grand jury by Judge Grosscup as to what constituted a criminal conspiracy in interstate commerce, 62 Fed. Rep. 838; charge to grand jury in California by Ross, J., 62 Fed. Rep. 834; by Morrow, J., 62 Fed. Rep. 840. See supra, ch. IV. $258. Construction of the statute.- Under the statute before its recent amendment, it was held that a corporation could not be indicted thereunder, as the only parties punishable were individuals. United States v. Michigan Central Railroad Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 26. (But see act of Feb. 19, 1903 infra, $310). The agent who was a party to the carrying of freight or passengers at a rate less than the published tariff was subject to indictment. Under that provision of the section making it unlawful for carriers to receive greater or less compensation from one shipper than from another for an equal service, an indictment stating that a carrier gave a rebate to one shipper |