Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/91

 ARMOUR PACKING CO. v. UNITED STATES. Argument for the United Staten injarionsly it is purely incidental and does not' come within the constitutional prohibition. Pennsylvania v. W. heding & Bdmont Bride Co., 18 How. 421, 434; South Carolina v. Grgia, 93 U.S. 13; Cooley v. Bard of Port Wardens, 12 How. 299; Norris v. Boston, 7 How. 414; United States v. Wood, 145 Fed. Rep. 412;. The contract between the Burlington company and the pack- ers, even if valid as between carrier and shipper after August 7, 1905, cannot avail either carrier or shipper as a defense to a departure from the filed and published rate in force after that Since the passage of the Elkins amendment the shipper is liable equally with the cartier for a departure from the filed and published rate, and the mere soliciting, accepting, or receiving of  concernion or rebate is an offense. No intent ils necessary to the completion of that offense. Where the intent is not emen- tial, a mistake or ignorance oi fact is quite as immaterial as Sawyer, 17; State v. Crr/ffA, 67 Missouri, 287; Beckham v. Nacke, 56 Missouri, 546; Peopl v. Roby, 52 Michigan, 577; Church v. Minneapolis & St. L. RI. Co., 14 S. Dak. 443. The law stood upon the statute books when this contract was made. Both parties contracted with reference to it, and what SUbsequently might be done under it, even to the extent, as has been held, that the law itself might be change, because the power to regulate and legislate respecting such commerce is reserved in Congress. F/tera/d v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 63 Vermont,, 173; McGowan v. Wilmington, 95 N. Car. 417; C/arendon v. Rutland &c. Ry. Co., 75 Vermont, 6; St. Anthony v l St. Paul Water Co., 168 U.S. 372. The indictments in these cases are sufficient. The employ~ ment o a device is not an essential element of the offense, and with respect to the conceasion charged, the indictment fully and sufficiently described it, wh. at it was and of what it con- sisted. Unid States v. Br/tton,' 1Q7 U.S. 655 (cited by peti- tioners), discussed.. and distinguishrid. The charge in the in-

�