ARMOUR PACKING CO. =. UNITED STATES. ? ?0? U.S. Ba?w=?, J.? dictating. contract should continue for all ?tippem until the termln?tion of the period ?med therein. Obviously, from the tone of the opinion of the court the wrong done to'the shipper is recognized? and the argument is only that the respous/bility for the wrong rests upon Congress. In other words, the court has unloaded upon Congress the injustice which the construct/on placed by it upon the statute accom- plishes. To my mind a better way would be to enforce the con- t?act and thus secure justice in this case, lea 'ving to Congress the enactment of additional legislation, if deemed necessary? to prevent the po?s/bilities of secret arrangements between carrier and shipper. I am authorized to say that the Chief Justice and Mr. Jus- tice Peekham concur in this dissent. They are also of the opin/on that the trial court, the District Court of the Western District of Missouri, l?cl no jurisdiction of the alleged offense? but that such jurisdiction was vested in the District Court of Kansas? holding that when goods are delivered to the carrier, and the shipper has solicited, accepted or received any rebate, concession or discrimination from such' carrier, "in respect to the transportation" of the goods, the crime is then complete? at least so far as regards the shipper, and it cannot be made a continuing crime in each district through which the goods pass in their transportation. The Constitution has made pro- vis/on for the venue of criminal actions or prosecutions, and their nature cannot be altered by legislative enactment, so as to embrace the whole country in one vast district. A provision in a statute of this nature by which it is possible to find an indictment and to have a trial at the most remote point from the actual commission of the offense, ought not to be approved as a compliance with the Constitution.
�
