2o9u S. Syilab?a In con3truing the Elkins Aet it will be read not only'in the light of the pre- vious legislation on the same subject, but also of the purpose which Con- grees had in mind in enacting it-to ?quire all shippers to be treated alike and to pay one rate as cetabllshed, published and posted. /tara Ra?road Go. v. l?a/? Com,a?rre Com?/*?io?, g00 U.S. 391, 391. The requirements of ? 2 of Art. III of, and of the Sixth Amendment to, the Federal Constitution relate to the locality of the offe?e and not to the personal presence of the offender. Transportation of merchandise by a carrier for leto than the published rate is, under the Elkins Act, a single continuing offense, continuously com- mitted in ench district through which the transportation is conducted at tile prehibited rate, and is not a series of separate oftenace, and the provi- sion in the law making such an offense triable in any of those districts, confers jurisdiction on the court therein, and doce not violate t 2 of Art. III of, or the Sixth Amendment to, the Federal Constitution, providing that the accused shall be tried in the State and district where the crime was committed. The Interstate Commerce Act embraces the whole field of intorctato commerce; it does not exempt such foreign commerce as is cm?ied on a through bill of lading, but in terms applies to the transportation af property shipped. from any place in the United States to a fore'? n country and car- ried from such ph?e to a pert of transhipment. The export and preference cinuse of the Constitution proin'bits burdens only by way of actual taxation and duty, or legislation intending to give, and actually giving, tl?e prohibited preference, and do? not prohibit the merely incidental effect of regulations of intel?tate commerce wholly within the power of Congress; and the fact that ?uch regulations in the Interstate Commerce Act may affect the ports of one Stats having natural advantag? more than tho? of another State not powering such vantag? does not render the act unconstitutional as violating that pro- vision. There is no provisioa in the Elkins Act exempting special contracts from its operation, nor is there any pl?vision for filing and publishing such con- tracts, and the fact that a contract was at the published rate when made does not legalize it after the carrier has advanced the published rate. The provisions as to rates, being in force in a constitutional act of Congress when the contract is made, are read into the contract and become u part thereof, and the shipper, who is a party to such a contract, takes it subject to any change thereafter made in the rate to which he must conform or suffer the penalty fixed by law. An indictment which clearly and distinctly charges each and every element of the offense intended to be charged, and which distinctly advises tile defendant of what he is to meet at the trial is m?fiiclent; and so held in this ense as to an indictment for accepting rebates prohibits! by the Elkins Act, although the dctai|s of the device by which the ?bat? Were received were not set out. Wi.ile intent is to some extent essential m the commission of crime, and
�
