THE SOLICITOR. 919 



to the 2<S-hoiir period and not to the extended period of 36 hours ; in 

 other words, that sheep must be unloaded at the end of 36 hours, 

 even in the nighttime. 



St. Joseph SxocKYARDa Co. v. United States. 



(187 Fed. Rep., 104.) 



This case involves three actions. The stockyards company 

 accepted cattle which had been confmed beyond 2S hours in two cases 

 and less than 2S hours in the third. It then transported the stock 

 to its yards for rest, food, and water within 2 hours and 30 minutes 

 after it received them. It had no actual loiowledge of the length 

 of previous confinement and made no effort to find out. The court 

 below rendered judmients for the Government, but the court of 

 appeals for the eighth circuit, in reversing the lower court, held that 

 the stockyards company, in transporting the stock to its yards and 

 providing them with rest, food, and water, obeyed the spirit and accom- 

 plished the end of the 28-hour law. It further held that the stock- 

 yards company did not "knowingly" or "willfuUy" confine the cattle 

 in violation of the statute. In deciding this case the court followed 

 its decision in the case of United States v. Stockyards Terminal Ky. 

 Co. (178 Fed., 19, 23). The interpretation placed in this case on the 

 meaning of the words "knowingly" and "willfully" is at variance 

 with decisions in other circuits. It is essential that the questions 

 should be finally passed upon by the Supreme Court, and cases 

 are in the course oi prosecution in tliLs circuit with tliis end in view. 



The case of United States v. St. Louis National Stock Yards 

 Co., involving the liability of a terminal company in general under 

 the act, which was set for trial before the Sujireme Court of the United 

 States on October 10, 1911, was dismissed on motion of counsel for the 

 Government on account of the unsatisfactory state of the record. 

 A new suit was instituted, however, against this same company on 

 March 15, 1912, for the purpose of testing this question, and the case 

 had not been brought to trial at the close of the fiscal year. 



An encouraging feature of the work incident to the enforcement 

 of this humano statute was the assessment of the maximum penalty in 

 a considerable number of cases. Experience has sho\\Ti that the 

 imposition of minunum penalties is not an effective deterrent against 

 repetition of violations, but it is believed that increased penalties 

 wul produce beneficial results by decreasing the ])rofits of carriei*s 

 who may continue to disregard the prohibitions of the law. In 1911 

 the maximum fine of $500 was assessed in 3 cases, $350 in 1 , $300 in 5, 

 $250 in 6, $200 in 17, $150 in 11, and $125 in 1 case; $100 was 

 assessed in the rest. In 1912 the maxunum penalty of $500 was 

 assessed in 12 cases, $200 in 17, and $250 in 2 cases; $100 was assessed 

 in the remaining cases. The record of penalties is particularly note- 

 worthy because, owing to tlie decision of the Supreme Court in Balti- 

 more & Oliio Southwestern ]{. II. Co. v. United States, a number of 

 cases had to be consolidated on which separate penalties would other- 

 wise have probably been secured. 



At page 989 of this report will be found a table setting forth the 

 details of cases arising under the 28-hour law, iuid finally aisj)Osed of 

 during the period covered by this report. 



