Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/86

 60 OCTOBER TP_JM, 1907. Aret for Petto 209 U. K plete in Kansas. See Dwly v. United States, 152 U.S. 539; In re Bdknap, 96 Fed. Rep. 614, 616, 617; Davis v. United States, 43 C. C. A. 448; S.C., 104.Fed. Rep. 136,138,139; Un/ted States v. Fawkes, 3 C. C. A. 394; $. C., 53 Fed. Rep. 13, 16, 17. The pm-pese of � Art. III, of the Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment, was to give to defendant the benefit of an indictment by, and a trial before, a jury of his neighbors, Or of the community in which the offense was committed, and to pro- tcct hinu against a trial "ns a stranger in a strange land" where he had never been and in which he had committedr no act. Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U.S. 20; Beavers v. He/, 194 U.S. 73, 83; Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 349, 3,0; West v. Gammon, 39 C. C. A. 271; Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 304. The shipment being a through export shipment, was not within the Elkins Act, which is limited to "the interstate or foreign commerce" provided for in the original Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat.'379, and amendments thereto, 5 Stat. 855. Its terms have no application to a through export ship- ment and as such shipments are excluded from the scope of the set, � requiring the publication og schedules, can have no application thereto. The act covers only rail carriers, or those with a combined rail and water (inland) route. Independent inland water carriers are not included, nor water carriers under & common arrangement with each other for continuous shipment. With broadest interpretation of phrase, "common control," etc., it is only water (inland) carriers that make joint rates with a rail carrier that come within the act.' All other carriers are excluded, wagon, express, telegraph, etc. Ocean carriers, whether acting independently or making common arrangement with rail carriers, are outside the act; because they do not carry the kind of commerce that is rculated by the act, that is, for- eign commerce while it is outside port of transhipment or entry; nor do they come under �lccription of carriers regulated. The act as construed by the Circuit Court of Appeals is in

�