Argument for tl? Unit,?d 8t?te? in case? where a specific act is unconditionally made an offense. So where the offense is uttering forged paper, United States v. Carll, 105 U.S.' 611; obstructing justice, .Pcttibone v. Un/ted States, 148 U.S. 197; mailing obscene matter, Un/ted States v. $/enker, 32 Fed. 'Rep. 691, 694; obstructing Federal election officers, United ?tates v. Taylor, 57 Fed. Rep. 391; adopting device prohibited by the Elkins Act, United States v. M//- wauke? Transit Co., 142 Fed. Rep. 247, 252. This is a recog- nition of the general rule that criminality will not be imputed ?mles? an act is done in bad faith, or with an intention of vio- lating the law. The Attorney General, Mr. Milton D. Purdy, Assistant to the Attorney General, and Mr. A. $. Van Valkenburgh, United States Attorney, for the United States: The acts of the shippers in these cases in accepting and re- ceiving a special r?te or discrimination, whereby their goods were carried at a less r?te than that charged others for the s?me service, 'constitutce a crime under the Elkins Act without g?rd to whether' there was any secret device employed by them to obtain from the r?ilros/.l company the concession of such. rebate, special rate or discrimination. The history of the prior acts in pari rnateria, as well as of the Elkins Act itseft, shows this to be so. UnWed States v. Tozer, 37 Fed. Rep. 635; Uniled States v. Standard Oil Co., 148 Fed. Rep. 719; New York, New Haven & Hart[owl R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U.S. 361; Harri? v. Rosenber?er, 145 Fed. Rep. 449; /and v. Un/ted States, 161 U.S. 306. The court had jurisdiction of the alleged crime for the reason that the transportation was conducted through the district, and the tr,?nsl?ortation of the property is an essential element of the offense. The offense of giving or receiving rebates is susceptible of prosecution whenever the transportation has started by the delivery of the property to the carrier, and con- tinue? and is ever present until that transportation is pieted. Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U.S. 412; Heyman v. Southern
�
