Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-06-22
RAIL WAYS AND
PACKERS FINED
Unlawful Concessions Given on
Freight Rates.
VIOLATED THE ELKlNS LAW
Successful Issue of Government Pros
ecution.
INDICTED IN LAST JANUARY
Seven Convictions Obtained Out of
Eleven Cases-one Acquitted
and Three Dismissed.
Successful Issue of Government Pros
ecution.
IN LAST JANUARY

l
| KANSAS CITY, Mo-. June 22.-In tho
| United States district court here this morn
/ ing Judge Smith Mcpherson OF Red Oak,
Iowa, passed sentence upon the seven de-
| PENDANTS recently convicted In this court Of
| making concessions and accepting and con-
spring to accept rebates on shipments.
Judgments In the nature OF fines were as
sessed. as follows:
Swift Co, $4,000; Cudahy Packing
Company. $4,000; Armour Packing Com
| pany, $4,000; Nelson Morris & Co, $4,000:
| Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railway,
| $4,000
| George L. Thomas of New York was fined
5000 and sentenced TO four months In the
| penitenuary.
| L. b. Taggart Of New York was fined
| $4,000 and sentenced to three months in the
| penitentiary.
Judge Mcpherson made a statement of
the cases before passing judgment in which
/ he reviewed the various charges and evil
| dence brought out at the trial In the
| case of the four packing companies con-
| victed of receiving concessions in accept
| ing a rate of % cents hundred pounds on
| export shipments from the Burlington rail-
| road. together with connecting lines be-
| tween the Mississippi river and New York
| wien the published tariff was 20 cents, and
the case of the burlington railroad. con-
victed of granting these concessions, he
said:
Unlawful Concessions
81 state these facts in writing to try TO
correct the oft-repeated statement that
| these are rebate cases. 1t is not so. II is
case of unlawful concession after August
| at a rate of IL cents less than shown by
| the tariffs then on file at Washington un-
| der contract OF June 10 OF 23 cents, the
| lawful and duly established rate"
He continued: when the Clover Lear
| Increased the rate August to 80 cents the
Lehigh Valley and other connecting lines In
the east filed 'concurrences'-that is to say
the eastern lines agreed to such increase
And In the trial of the packing house
cases the agreed statement of facts recited
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
must be engaged Or, TO restate it. II one
is guilty, the other is. IL the carrier makes
the concession 1t is guilty and il the shin
per accepts the concession he is guilty
And the only difference In the evidence
of the cases is the shippers agreed that the
Burlington is a party to the increase of
| rates filed by the Clover Leaf August g.
The truth is that the Burlington did
not file concurrence with the commission
increasing the rate over the Clover Leaf
and it's eastern connections and as to that
contention the Burlington is right. But it
is contention Of no possible importance.
This is so because on the same the fol-
lowing day the Burlington filed with the
Interstate commerce commission a tariff
rate Of 35 cents from the Mississippi river
10 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 II was the same whether the shipment
went east from st. Louis over the Clover
Leaf or northwest over the Burlington, or
other points on the Burlington lines at the
Mississippi river.
And the contention that the Burlington
die not file concurrence to the new ana
Increased tariff rate of the Glover Leaf Is
OF no Importance for another reason. name
Iy-the Burlington after August q did turn
the freight prepaid over TO the Clover Lear.
and, in the language of the Elkins law,
participates in any rates so filed or pub
lished.'
so that on and after August all ship
pers OF like products of like classification
were compelled TO pay 30 cents. while the
four packing houses got their goods through
al % cents.
1T is my opinion the contract of June II
Of doubtful validity when made, ana
after August { device within the
meaning of the law. OF so much OF the
case / am not In the slightest doubt.
Whether the statute covers export ship
ments Is more serious question, Like
many other questions. there is no way OF
concluding the question except by de-
cision of the highest court OF the land"
Approves the Verdicts.
Judge Mcpherson said that he was fully
persuaded that the verdicts In the packing
house cases and the case of the Burlington
are right. and he assessed the fines against
all of said corpora tons at the same sum.
These parties" he says were all together
in this scheme. with like motive and pur-
pose.
In speaking of the Thomas and Taggart
cases Judge Mcpherson said that evidence
had been adduced to show that George A.
Barton, for the firm of Barton sBros.,
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 received the
sums stated from railways: Barton Bros,
S. 220; Robert Keith Furniture Company,
Kansas City, s1,372; the Webb-Freyschlag
Mercantile Company, Kansas City, $500;
Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Company,
Kansas City. $1,000; Burnham. Hanna,
Munger Dry Goods Company st. Louis,
10000: F. p Kirkendal Shoe Company OF
Omaha, $1,00O.
$50 that as nearly as can be gathered
from the evidence the defendants after de-
Quoting for their own services from money
received from railways. paid to the con-
Germs named within four years as rebates.
the enormous sum of $S2, ,459. And the evil
dence fairly shows there were other rebates
paid by them.
II assume ali these concerns will be pro-
ceeded against for receiving these unlaw-
full rebates, which can be done either BY
Indictment or information, as the last vest
ige of the plea Of immunity for corpord-
tions has been wiped out by the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States
OF March IL, 1909, In the case OF Hale agt.
Henkle.
Judge Spencer's Statement.
Judge o. NJ Spencer OF st. Joseph. gem
erai counselor OF the Burlington railway.
and one Of the counsel for Thomas and
TaKgart, made statement OF the case
- mr.,