The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1906-12-08

that basls-that is, II this discriminate
IN iaVor OF this particular shipper wa,
maoe win an Is instead of a 70 cen
rate n the tariff rate was maintainef
as against their competitors-the re-.
SUIT might be and not improbabIy wouId
pc thar their competitors would be driver
IN Tut OF business. This crime is one which
tated. | think over a fortnight elansed
I'VE the date of Palmer's letter re-.
questlng the reduced rate and the answer
grsn nfe ralir9ad company deciding to
wards this business was carried on an6
tHese claims for rebates submitted month
aiter month and checks in payment OF
sHe = uTawn month after month. Such
= violation of the law, In nv opinion in
us essential nature, Is a very mi,ch
more helnous act than the ordinary
common, vulgar crimes which come he.
III CItunlnal courts constantly for pun
lsHHnent and which arise from sudden
passion or temntation Thi- o~insS -
thls case was committed by men ~
education and Of large business exneri.
ence, whose business standing in the
community was such that thev miSbt
nave been expected to set an exap1nle
OF obedience TO law, upon the main
Ienanee OF which alone in this country
Hte security OF their property depends.
raiiroad corporation, which, like other
rdilroad corporations, has received gra-
tuitously from the state large and vain
ienee p anS Tor the public's conven-
pubic functions and which is charged
win the highest obligation in the trans
acuon or its business to treat the citizens
~ tnis country alike, and not to carry on
lts business with unjust discriminaf ions
petween different citizens or differenf
cIasses OF citizens. This crime in lie
nature Is one usually done with secrecy
ana PROOF OF which 1t is very difficult
10 obtain. The interstate commerca 80
was passed in 1887. nearly % wears go
Ever since that time complaints of fha
granting OF rebates by railroads has hear
common, urgent, insistent, and altho
me congress has repeatedly past legis'
Iation endeavoring to put a ston to tbie
evil, the difficulties of obtaining nrooS
upon winch TO bring prosecution In these
90 Eases sse IS So great that this is the iirst
Ease that has ever been brought in this
court, and, as | am Informed mis- 600
ana one recently brought in Philadelnbie
are tne only cases that haze ever heen
Drought IN the eastern part Of this coun-
Try. In fact, but few cases OF this hind
nave ever been brought in this co1ntrv
east or west. Now, under these cireI,1,
Stances, ! am forced to the Conclusion
IN q case in which the proof Is SO clear
ana the facts are so fragrant. n is tba
uuty OF the court to fix a penaltv which
shail IN some degree be commensprats
with the gravity of the offense AS Ne
ttween me TWO defendants, in my opinion.
Inc principal penalty should he inpnnsa3
on the corporation. The traffic maneger
IN thls case, presumably, acted withont
any advantage to himself and uyitbont
any interest in the transaction. either
by. the direct authority or in accorda noe
with what he understood to be the noIicv
or the wishes of his employer.
me sentence OF this court in this case
IS that ne defendant Pomeroy, for each
been convicted, be fined the sum Of Il aSo
making six fines, amounting in ali to fhs
sum OF S6,y9V; and the defendant. The
VIEW York Central & Hudson River Rail-
road company, for each of the six crimas
of which It has been convicted, he sneS
the sum of $4,000, making six inas
IN The aggregate to the sim
OF SlSS,OOO, and judgment 10 that effect
VIII De entered in this case"
Evasion by TechnIcaIIties.
In connection with thism matter, I would
IKE 10 call attention to the very unsst-
isfactory state Of our criminal Law ~
In large part from the habit 81
aside the judgments of infsrior
on techniealities absolutely I'M
connected with the merits of the case
and where there is no attempt IN shov;
mat there has been any failure OF suh.
stantlal justice. 1t would be well In on
49, a law providing something to the
No Judgment shall be set aside mr. rsv
Irlal granted in any cause. civil or orim.
nal, on the ground Of misdlrection Of tha
Jury or the improper admission or re-
Of pleading or procedure nDlsSS
N the opinion OF the court TO which ths
application iB made, after an examlna.
zen OF the entire cause, It shall afirms.
\, ESty Appear tnat the error complained
Justice. :"
InjunctiOns.
In my last message I suggested the an.
Acunent OF q law in connection vvlth ~.
sssHnss Of tntunetions, attention hsy-
" the dsmand that the right OF anniv.
nE mlunetions N labor cases should e
HholN soollshod. II IL at least doubtfui
.nStS:r z iaw aeOlishinE altogether the
. the test OF the courts: in whicb
.Ass Of course tho legislation would be I
nShoctVe. Moreover, I believe n wouIS /
wrong altogether to prohibit the use :
ympathy with criminals 10 wesksn ows :
IA1os In upholding the law; and II men :
eek 70 destroy life or property hv NOR !
folence there should be no impairment !
Z the power OF the courts to deal WITH =
hem In the most summary ana effsc,t,n !
ray possible. But 80 far as possible me 4
ouae OF the power should Be providsd :
gainst By some such law as l advocated I
year. +.
In this matter Of lnjunctions there !. :
,dged In the hands OF the judielarv Z
ecensary power which 10 neverthsfas- q
aoIsst TO the possibility Of grave abuse !
PoWoi lhdt SnOulQ be eXercigad Il
1th extreme care and should be suh- 4
oct to the jealous scrutiny OF ali mar =
nd condemnation should be meted oni 4
8 much to the Judge who fails To uss /,
boldly when necessary as to the t1dee /,
no uses II wantonly or oppressIveIy "
course, q Judge strong enough n k n
{ for his ONCE will anJoin anv resort q
} violence or intimidation, especially Nv =
onspiracy, no matter what his onfnio1 Il
.2y be OF the rights OF the original niiar- q
d.. There must be no hesitation IL y
ealing with disorder. But there must =
be no such abuse OF the In !,
lnctive power as is implied In forbidding :,
boring men to strive FOR their owf bete ~
lrnent in peaceful and lawful yavs ~
or must the injunction be used mereiv =,
aid some big corporation IN carrving y
schemes for its own ACKNOWLEDGMENT q
must be remembered that a preilm. =,
airy Injunction In a labor case. IN y,
ranted without adequate proof (ever =.
hen authority can be found to sunporf ,s
le conclusions Of law on which X ia !.
Iunced), may often settle the dispute "
the parties; and therefore IL y
lproperly granted may DO lrreparable y
ronR Yet there are many judges who =,