Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-12-05

cPANNOoS AoAsoA VI III luCSc StlScS, W.
have had many successes, which have
undoubtedly had deterrent effect up
on eviIdoers. whether the penalty in
ficted was In the shape of fine or i'm
prisonment. and penalties of both
kinds have already been inflicted by
the courts. OF course where the Judge
can see his way to infict the penalty
Of Imprisonment the deterrent effect
Of the punishment on other offenders Is
increased, but sufficiently heavy fines
accomplish much. Judge Holt Of the
New York district court in a recent
decision admirably stated the need for
treating with just severity offenders
Of this kind. His opinion runs in part
as follows:
Judge Holt Quoted.
1.-THE governments evidence to es-
tablish this defendants guilt was clear,
conclusive and undisputed. The case
was a fragrant one. The transactions
which took place under this illegal
contract We're very large. the amounts
of rebates returned We're considerable
and the amount Of the rebate itself
was large, amounting to more than
one-f1fth Of the entire tariff charge for
the transportation of merchandise from
this city to Detroit 1t Is not too much
to say. in my opinion, that If this bust
ness was carried on for a considerable
time on that basis-that is, If this dis
elimination in favor Of this particular
shipper was made with an eighteen
instead Of a twenty-three cent rate
and the tariff rate was maintain
ed as against their coIaH"::t Us the
bly, would be, that their competi
tors would be driven ont Of business.
This crime Is one which IN It's nature
is deliberate and premeditatod. think
over fortnight elapsed between the
date Of Palmer's letter requesting the
reduced rate and the answer of the
railroad company deciding to grant 1t.
and then for months aftorWard this
business was carried on md these
claims for rebates submitted month
after month and checks il payment Of
them drawn month after month. Such
a violation Of the law. In my opinion,
In its essential nature Is n very much
more heinous act than the ordinary
common, vulgar crimes which come be-
fore criminal courts constantly for pun
ishment and which arise from sudden
passion or temptation. This crime in
this case was committed by men of
education and of large business expert
ence whose standing in the community
was such that they might have been
expected to set an example Of obedi-
ence to law, upon the maintenance of
which alone in this country the securl-
ty of their property depends. 1t was
committed on behalf Of a great rail
road corporation, which. like other rail-
road corporations. has received gratu
itously from the state large and valu-
able privileges for the public'S con-
venience and its own, which performs
quasi public functions and which IS
charged with the highest obligation in
the transaction Of its business to treat
the citizens of this country alike and
not to carry on its business with unjust
between different citi-
Zens or different classes Of citizens.
This crime in its nature IS one usually
done with secrecy and proof Of which
1t is very difficult to obtain.
"The interstate commerce act was
passed In 1897. nearly twenty years
ago. Ever since that time complaints
of the granting of rebates by railroads
have been common. urgent and insist
ent, and, although the congress has re-
peatedly passed legislation endeavOr-
ing to put stop to this evil the diff
Guilty of obtaining proof upon which to
bring prosecution in these cases Is so
great that this Is the first case that
has ever been brought in this court,
and, as l am informed. this case and
one recently brought in Philadelphia
are the only cases that have ever been
brought in the eastern part of this
country. In fact, but few cases of this
kind have ever been brought in this
country, east or west. Now, under
these circumstances l am forced to
the conclusion in a case In which the
proof Is so clear and the facts are so
fragrant it Is the duty of the court to
fix a penalty which shall In some de-
gree be commensurate with the gravity
of the offense. As between the two de-
PENDANTS, in my opinion. the principal
penalty should he imposed on the cor
poration. The traffic manager in this
case presumably acted without any i'd
vantage to himself and without any in
terest in the transaction either by the
direct authority or in accordance with
what he understood to be the policy or
the wishes of his employer.
"The sentence Of this court in this
case is that the defendant POmeroy for
each of the six offenscs upon which he
has been convicted be fined the sum
of $1,000. making six fines. amounting
in all to the sum Of 5000. and the de-
PENDANT, the New York Central and
Hudson River Railroad company. for
each of the SIX crimes of which it has
been convicted be fined the sum Of
$4,000, making six fines. amounting In
the aggregate to the sum of S10S. COO