Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-06-01
PABST COMPANY ACQUITTED
All Other Defendants in Milwaukee Rebate
Cases Convicted. -
OPINION DELIVERED BY JUDGE BAKER
cIinedto ne Device for secur-
Ing eoOcession from
Railroads. o.

MILWAUKEE, May s1.-The United
States circuit court for the eastern circuit
Of Wisconsin today handed down its de-
cisioR in the rebate suit against the MIL
wsukee Refrigeration company, six rail-
roads and the Pabst Brewing company. on
charges OF alleged violations OF the Elkins
act. finding against the defendants with
the exception OF the Pahst Brewing COM
pany, the suit against which IL dismissed.
The complaint recited that the refrigerator
company had received commissions of from
10 to 12A per cent on all shipments of
beer from the Pabst Brewing company
routed by It. The railroad companies ad-
mitted having made such concessions. but
claimed that these had been paid the same
as commissions to other freight solicitors.
Judge Baker. delivered the opinion, which
was concurred in by Judges Grosscup.
Seaman and Kohisaat.
The defendants in, the case were: Mil
waukee Refrigerator Transit company,
Pere Marquette Railroad company, Erie
Railroad company, the Chicago, Rock
Island Pacific Railroad company. the st.
Louis a San Francisco Railroad company.
the Wisconsin Central Railroad company,
the Chicago q Alton Railroad company and
the Pabst Brewing company.
DectsiOn of the Court.
The decision stripped Of legal yerbiags is
In part as follows:
The charges in the petition are. substsn-
That the brewing Company organized the
refrigerator company, IL the beneficial
owner OF the refriEetator company stock,
ana thereby Indirectly receives the moneys
paid by the railroad companies to the
refrigerator company on account of beer
Shipments. That the refrigerator company
n haN II q
dummy OF the brewing company, was or
ganized az a device for the purpose OF ex-
proportiOn OF the freight moneys for in
terstate and foreign shipments controlled
by II; that II holds contracts from the
goods, whereby II ia. siyen executive con-
troll OF shipments TO competitive points;
that It withholds such trafffc from railroad
from one-tenth to one-sfEhth OF the freight
moneys That the railroad companies have
PAID 10 the refrigerator company from one
on all trafic controlled BY the refrigerator
company. !
The majority OF the brewing company
STOCK ls owned by persons who have no
interest in the refrigerator company. The
stock OF the refrigerator company was
bought up by the holders with their own
joTity OF II is owned by persons who also
own brewing company stock. But the
brewing company pays its freight in full,
the contract between the refrigerator and
the railroad companies. Under the EVIL
denee the most, that can fairly be said
refriGerator company IL that the former
gave the control OF shipments to the latter
a. =. favor and 70 enable It to profit thereby
y 1t could. For failure OF proof the
dismissed. ~ D!
Plea of want of Equity Invalid.
:, Contention Is made that equity jurisdIc-
ton does not inherently extend and can
not by congress be extended to restrain
ing the commission OF crimes and INSIDE
That the infractIon OF the complainants'
rights may also constitute a crime is no
reason for denying relief. II a complain
ants rights osnhotn DE adequately pre-
that will be Enforceable can be framed no
court of equity; sfI0uidr acknowledge itself
wanting in the primary power OF devising
DEGREES and writs 70 meet the needs of the
situation.
II a person whose business was being
undermined and ruined through advantages
unlaWfplly given to a. competitor should
see RELIEF in equity, the objection that a
property right was not Involved would be
numerous and widely separated, because
their injuries Jeverally may be small and
because the United States had the regula-
ton OF interstate and foreign commerce.,
in our opinion congress very clearly had
the power to authorize equity proceedings
with the United states as complainant for
the protection Of all persons who would
be injured by the unlawful practices.
1t Is evident that the railroad companies
In sceeding to the demands Of the re-
frigerator company have a. failed strictly
to observe the published tariffs and (2)
granted concessions whereby they received
less rate than that named In the pub
lished tariffs.
1t matters rot that the particular prac-
tice herein disclosed liz not described In
the act. The inhibition of any device
whatever" that accomplishes the con-
demned results Is a ban upon invention in
this field. .-ts -... ..-- =
So far as the fact of intent Is material,
IL follows from the consideration that the
parties knowingly and deliberately did
what. they did. .t.EJ-' f"