The Topeka state journal., 1906-06-22
SUNS Up THE CASE.
Statement Made by Judge Mcpherson
BefOre PASSING Sentence.

Judge Mcpherson made a statement
| OF the cases before passing judgment
I IN which he reviewed the various
/ charges and evidence brought out at the
/ trial In the case Of the four packing
I companies. convicted of having receiy-
| ed concessions in accepting a rate of
% cents a hundred pounds on export
! shipments from the Burlington rail
4 road, together with come ecting lines be-
I tween the Mississippi river and New
/ York, when the published tariff was 80
| cents, and the case of the Burlington
/ railway convicted of granting these
! concessions. he said:
Il state these facts in writing to try
and correct the oft repeated statement
/ that these are rebate cases. 1t is not
/ so. 1t is a case of unlawful concessions
/ after August 6, at a rate of - cents
/ less than shown by the tariffs then on
! file at Washington under contract of
June 16, of % cents, the then lawful
/ and duly esta blished rate
/ He continued: When the Clover Leaf
I increased the rate August g. TO 35 cents,
I the Lehigh Valley and other connect
/ ing lines in the east filed 'concurrences,
that is to say that the eastern lines
agreed to such increases.
And in the trial of the packing house
cases the agreed statement of facts re-
cited that the Burlington company
( agreed to such increase.
In the Burlington case, it refused
to sign this statement.
so that. like many other crimes, two
]
/ one is guilty the other is. IF the car
rier makes the concession it is guilty
and if the shipper accepts the conees-
( sion. it is guilty.
And the only difference in the evil
I dence of the eases Is. the shippers
agreed that the Burlington IS a party
/ to the increase of rates fled by the
/ Glover Leaf August g.
The truth is that the Burlington
did not file a concurrence with the
commission, increasing the rate over
! the Clover Leaf and eastern connec-
! tions connecting with the Glover Leaf.
/ And as to that contention the Burling-
ton is right. But it is a contention of
no possible Importance. This is so be-
/ cause on the same or following day the
Burlington filed with the interstate
/ commerce commission a tariff rate OF
80 cents from the Mississippi river to
New York. And on and after that
! date no one of the public could ship
/ from that river to New York for less
/ than 35 cents and 1t was the same
whether the shipment went east from
/ St. Louis over the Glover Leaf, or
northwest over the Burlington or other
/ points on the Burlington lines at the
/ Mississippi river.
And the contention that the Burling-
/ ton did not file a concurrence to the
/ new and increased tariff rate of the
] Clover Leaf, is of no Importance for
1 another reason. namely: the Burlington
4 after August 6, did turn the freight pre-
/ paid over to the Clover Leaf and in the
/ language of the Elkins law participates
1 in any rates SO fled or published
so that on and after August 6, all
/ shippers of like products of like classifi-
J cation were compelled to pay So cents,
while the four packing houses got their
goods through at % cents.
ut is my opinion the contract of June
II was of doubtful validity when made
/ and after August was a device with
in the meaning of the law. Of so much
I n 7
doubt
Whether the statute covers export
shipment is a more serious question.
Like many other questions there is no
way of concluding the question except
by a decision of the highest court of the
! land"
Judge Mcpherson said that the con
clusions of the interstate commerce
/ commission on the point of exports are
/ embarrassing, and added:
But regardless of what the commits
sion said. those indictments have been
I returned and prosecuted to conviction. -
The constitution covers exports in the
/ same clause that it covers commerce
4 between the states.
{ And the statutes in question do the
same, and after a great deal of concern
and thought [ am not able to see the
distinctions that defendants counsel
seek to make. 3"
Judge Mcpherson said that he was
I fully persuaded that the verdiets in the
packing house cases and the case of the
Burlington are right and he assessed
/ the fines against all of said corporations
/ at the same sum.
These parties he says, were alto
/ gether in this scheme with like motive
( and purpose"
In speaking of the Thomas and
4 Taggart cases, Judge Mcpherson said
that evidence had been adduced to
show that George A. Barton, for the
firm of E9arro11 E3roG wholesale shoe
and leather dealers, had received large
sums of money from various railways
through the defendants.
Not only SO" Continued the court.
but the following named concerns re
ceived the sums stated from railways:
Barton Brothers. IS. .220: Robert Keith
Furniture company. Kansas City. $l,SI2,
f the Webb-Freychlag Mercantile com
pany Of Kansas City, $4,000; Emery.
/ Bird Thayer Dry Goods company of
Kansas City, SS2, COO: Burnham, Hanna.
Munger Dry Goods company of Kansas
+ City. S44, 566: -Mckittrick Dry
( Goods company Of st. Louis, $4,000; F
P. KirkendaH Shoe company Of Omaha.
/ 81 000
SO that as nearly as can be gathered
from the evidence. the defendants after
deducting for their own services from
( money received from railways paid to
/ the concerns named within four years,
( as rebates. the enormous sum OF SS2,-
459.11. And the evidence fairly shows
there We're other rebates paid and by
them
i assume all these concerns will be
proceeded against for receiving these
unlawful rebates. which can be do1S'
either by indictment or information. as
the last vestige of the plea of immunity
for corporations has been wiped out by
the decision Of the supreme court Of the
United States Of March y. 1906, in the
case of Hale versus Henkle."
ARGUMENT FOR DEFENSE.