7'2 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Op/nion of the (?ourh 209 U. 8. This act is not only to be 'read in the light of the previous legislation, but the purpose which Congress evidently had mind in the passage of the law is also to be considered. The views of this court, speaking through Mr. Justice White, in N.Y., New Hav?n & Hart/oral R. R. Co. v. Inteestate merce Cora?v/on, 200 U.S. 361, 391, are apposite here: "It cannot be challenged that the great purpo? of the act to regulate commerce,. whilst seeking to prevent unjust and unreasonable rate?, was.to secure equality of rates as to all and to destroy favoritism, these last being accomplished by requiring the publication of tariffs and by proMblting secret departures from such tariffs, and ,f?rbidding rebates, prefer- ences, and all other forms of undue discrimination. To this extent and for these p? the statute was remedial ant! is, therefore, entitled to receive that interpretation which rea- sonably accomplishes the great public purpose which it was enacted to subserve. . . The' all-embracing prohibition against either directly or indirectly charging less than the published rates shows that the purpose of the statute was to make the prohibition applicable to everx method of dealing by a carrier by which the forbidden result could be brought ?beut. If the public purpose which the statute was intended to ?,complish be borne 'in mind, it? m?,,nlng becomes, if pomi- ble, clearer.;' . The Elkins 'Act proceeded upon broad lines and was evi-' dently intended to effectuate the purpo? of Congre? to re- quire that all shippers should be treated alike, and that the only rate charged to any shipper for the same .service under the same conditions should be the one established, published and posted as required by law. It is not so much the particu- lar form by which or the motive for which this purpose was accomplished, but the intention was to prohibit any and all means that might be re?orted to to obtain or receive conces- sions and rebates from the fixed rates, duly posted and pub- ?shed. It is next contended that there is no jurisdiction to prosecute
�
