The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-07-02
money as rebates of the money paid and
 to be paid by Schwarzchild & Sulzber-

to be paid by Schwarzchild ~ SulzpeI. ger for the transportation of goods. Appended to the indictment was a copy of a letter alleged to have been written May 1s, 1904, by Cusey to As- sistant General Freight Agent Brichett of the Mobile and Ohio. in which he declared that such business as Schwarz- schild & sulzberger had been giving the railroad had been diverted until tn" company received more consideration from the railroad
 Assistant Attorney C. H. Pagin said in explanation of the indictments:
 'The indictments are based on the finding of July 1, 1904. The penalty in case of violation is Q fine not exceeding $5,000. or Imprisonment not exceeding one year. or both. in the discretion of the court. Of course. a corporation could not be imprisoned, and in this di- rection the penalty by 1ne Is all that can apply.
 The question as to what constitutes a trust is not thoroughly settled. some authorities including in the definition of a trust the idea of plscing stocks of different corporations in the hands of another corporation to be held in trust and managed without the interference of tho separate corporations which are thus put In combination. If this Is the correct definition of a trust, the indict- ment in this case does not charge the defendants with having trust. there being no allegation that the stocks of the large packing companies are held In trust for the purpose of management.
 Tt is true that the stock of ten small CT packing concerns previously running in opposition to the big packers was bought by individuals connected with the big corporations and placed with another corporation organized for the purpose of holding the stocks--the Ma ' n -l-l t.,k makes no direct charges against the National Packing Company or any of its officers. except such as were officers of the big packing companies.
 A Difference.
 "On this point the National Pack ing Company differed from the North ern Securities case lately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the latter case only the controlling interests of the railroads concerned was brought up and put in the hands of a third corporation for management"
 As soon as the indictments had been handed into court, District Attorney Morrison suggested that each of the defendants be pleaded under bonds of 34.0O0, and when the court asked if bench warrants were to be served he was informed by the district attorney that the legal advisers for all tine men included in the indictments had agreed to produce the men on Mon- day or as soon as possible after July {. Judge Bethea acquiesced in this arrangement and addressed the jury. saying:.
 Tt is not proper for me to com ment upon the result of your work. inasmuch as I was partly instrument tai in bringing about the investigation you have conducted. I congratulate you upon the work you have done. For three months you have labored conscientiously. probably have broken all records for a like inquiry. You nave not been influenced by prejudice nor position or by and individual. You have been influenced only by a desire to do your duty. You have worked at tho sacrifice of your business in the interests of the public. If more citizens were actuated by the same public spirit there would be less need for the enforcement of laws"
 The first one of the indicted men to offer bond was B. s. Cusey He appeared in court about one hour af- ter the indictments had been returned and gave bond of 5000. The Nses will not be tried in all probability until some time in the fall.
 MiIIer's Statement.
 Attorney John s. Miller, counsel for the packing firms. gave out the foi- lowing statement:
 q ask for the packers who have been indicted the withholding of judg- ment until their side of this matter can be properly presented and known. think tho investigation on which these indictments are based was instituted and carried on with the previous com viction that the accused were guilty and the thing to accomplish was to get the evidence The packers have been prejudiced and condemned by being called a beef trust, by continued and repeated charges without proofs and by gross falsehood and misrepresenta- tion. The Garfield report accurately stated the facts in respect to the pack ing business but its results which were truthful and accurate. did not agree with the exaggerated and false charges that have been made.
 The packers arc not violaters Of the sherman act. They have endeavored to comply with the law in the best of faith and in my opinion they have done so."