86 OCTOBF? TF?, l?0T. Basv?m, J,, diamm?in? 3? U. 8. liable nnder the statute because of a duty resting on them to inform themselves 92 to the existence of the elements to establish a rate.92 required by .law, is a question not decided beesuse not arising on this record. The stipulated facts show that the shippers had knowledge of the rates published and shipped the goods under & contention of their legal right so to do. ? w92 all the knowledge or guilty intent that the act required. 'lBish. Cr.L?w($thed.), �. A mistake of law as to the right to ship under the contract after the change of rate is unav, dling upon well-settled principles. $t?, 98 U.S. 145. I?lnd[ug no error in the judgments of the Ch-c?t Court of Appeals, the same are Ma. Jus?c? MooDy took no part in the disportion of t?s c?se. MR. Jus?cE Ba?w?R dissenting: I dissent from the oph?on and judgment id tkis case, and, without noticing other objec- tions, I rest that dissent upon this ?n?le ?round: On June 17, 1905, the Burlington Railway Company made a contract with the petitioner, the Armour Packing Company, for the transpor- tation of certain products from I?_?n _ass_ City, I?sn ?v?s_, to New York, this contract to rema[u [u [orce until December 31, 1905. No objection is made to the reasonableness of ? contract or the rates named. The time during wMch it was to run was brief, less than seven months, and but for the le?slation of Congress there would be no question of its validity, or that could be enforced without subjecting either party thereto to any I?abil?ty, civil or criminal. On August 6 the Burlington Company and its connecting carriers filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission an amendment to their tariffs, which was duly posted and published, and by wMch the rate from t(,,n _?s? City, Kansas, to New York was increased. On August 17, 1?5, the Armour Packing Company delivered
�
