Los Angeles herald., 1906-12-05
PRESIDENT ASKS STRONGER
LAWS AGAINST RAILROADS
REFORM OF CURRENCY IS SUGGESTED
Legislation Sought to Prevent Abuse of Power of
InjunctiOns and Law Compelling Employ
ers and Employees to Submit Their
Grievances to Recognized
Tribunal for Arbitration
continued from Pnee onel

lOOntlnueu IFOm ENkc OntI
every effort was made to enforce these
laws by civil proceedings; but it has
become increasingly evident that the
action of the government in finally de-
Gliding in certain cases to undertake
criminal proceedings was justifiable;
and though there have been some con-
spicuous failures In these cases, we
have had many successes, which have
undoubtedly had a deterrent effect
upon evil-doers, whether the penalty
inflicted was in the shape of fine or
imprisonment-and penalties of both
kinds have already been inflicted by
the courts OF course, where the
Judge can see his way to infiict the
penalty of Imprisonment the deterrent
effect of the punishment on other Of
tenders 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 Of
tenders of this kind. His opinion runs
in part as follows;
Crimes by Corporations
1.-THE governments evidence to estab-
lish the defendants guilt was clear,
conclusive and undisputed. The case
was q fragrant one The transactions
which took place under this Illegal con-
tract were very large; the amounts
of rebates returned were considerable;
and the amount of the rebate itself was
large, amounting to more than one
fifth of the entire tariff charge for the
TRANSPORTATION of merchandise from this
city to Detroit. 1t was not too much
to say, in my opinion, that If this busi-
ness was carried on for considerable
time on that basis-that is, If this dis
elimination in favor of this particu-
lar shipper was made with an 1S in
stead of % cent rate and the tariff
rate was maintained as against their
competitors-the result might be and
not improbably would be that their
competitors would be driven out Of
business. This crime is one which in
its nature is deliberate and premedi-
tated. l think over a fortnight elapsed
between the date of Palmer's letter re-
uuesting the reduced rate and the an
swer of the railroad company deciding
to grant it, and then for months after
ward this business was carried on and
these claims for rebates submitted
month after month and checks in pay
ment of them drawn month after
month Such a violation of the law,
in my opinion, in it's essential nature,
is a very much more heinouS act than
the ordinary common, vulgar crimes
which come before criminal courts
constantly for punishment and which
arise from sudden passion or tempta-
tion This crime in this case was
committed by men of education and
of large business experience, whose
standing in the community was such
that they might have been expected to
set an example of obedience to law,
upon the maintenance of which alone
in this country the security of their
property depends. 1t was committed on
behalf of great railroad corporation,
which, like other railroad corpora
tions, has received gratuitously from
the state large and valuable privileges
for the publics convenience and it's
own, which performs quasi public
functions and which is charged with
the highest obligation in the transac-
tion of its business to treat the citizens
of this country alike and not to carry
on it's business with unjust discrimina-
tions between different citizens or diff
ferent classes of citizens. This crime in
it's nature is one usually done with
secrecy, and proof of which it is very
difficult to obtain. The interstate COM
merce act was passed in 1887, nearly
twenty years ago. Ever since that time
complaints of the granting of rebates
by railroads has been common, urgent
and insistent, and although the con-
gress has repeatedly passed legislation
endeavoring to put stop to this evil,
the difficulty 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 I am informed, this
case and one recently brought in Phila-
delphia 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, un-
der these circumstances, l am forced
TO the conclusion, in case in which the
proof is so clear and the facts so fla
grant, 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, I'm my opinion, the principal
penalty should be imposed on the cor
poration. The traffic manager In this
case, presumably, acted without any
advantage to himself and without any
interest 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.
1.-THE sentence of this court in this
case is that the defendant Pomeroy,
for each of the six offenses upon which
he has been convicted, be fined the sum
of $1,000, making six fines, amounting in
all to the sum of $4,000; and the de-
fendant, the New York Central & Hud-
son River Railroad company, for each
of the six crimes Of which II has been
convicted, be fined the sum OF $4,000,
making six fines amounting in the ag-
gregate to the sum of $108,000, and
Judgment to that effect will be entered
In this case"
Setting Aside Of Judgments and Grant,
Ing Of New Trials
In connection with this matter l
would like TO call attention to the
very unsatisfactory state of our Grim
inal law, resulting in large part from
the habit of setting aside judgments
OF inferior courts on technicalities abb
soIutely unconneeted with the merits
of the case, and where there Is no at
tempt to show that there has beer
any failure OF substantial justice. II
would be well 10 enact a law providing
something 20 the effect that:
No Judgment shall be set aside OF
new trial granted in any cause, civil
or criminal, on the ground Of mis-
direction Of the jury or the improper
admission or rejection OF evidence, OF
81