Omaha daily bee., 1906-06-07
GRAIN CASE IS SUBMITTED
Attorneys for Both State and Defendants
Submit Their Argumsnts
JUNt FoURrEES NAMED As FLAe DAY
state superintendent is 20 Have stem
osraphie Report of Model Rural
school Taken ana Later Pub
Iished I'm FaaphIet Form.
IRON a stan Correspondents

(From a stan Correspondent
LINCOLN. June 6-CSpecial THE grain
case Is now Up to the supreme court, the
attorneys for the defendants and Attorney
General Brown for the state having com
pleted their arguments on the Pemberton
report this afternoon. Attorney General
Brown IL well pleased with the report on
facts, while the attorneys for the defend
ants bitterly attacked the report. The ar
suments were practically the same as made
before the referee.
The attorney general in defending his Do
sition that the giving by the railroads Of
IL cents a hundred to the terminal Gle
vators for loading grain to be shipped east
OF the river, was rebate pure and simple,
said the act Of paying the money was in
eidental TO interstate commerce, and the SUI
preme court of Nebraska has Jurisdiction
in the matter and can stop It. Five Of the
corporations owning terminal elevators, he
said. testified they did not receive this ele-
walton fee. Only the favored ones secured
IL. While the Armour. bids. he said, were
based on the elevation charge, there was
no evidence introduced that these bids were
received by the small dealers out in the
state.
Ed p Smith, representing the Updlke
Grain company. said the giving OF the IA
Of Interstate commerce. and the courts Of
Nebraska had no Jurisdiction to pass upon
II. All the railroads advertised the giving
OF the elevation charge and II was no Sc
cret rebate or come back. No decision of
this court, he said. would affect his clients
elevator at Missouri Valley. la. II was
matter wholly in the hands OF congress
The act Of buying the grain in Nebraska
and loading IT, he said, was a part OF the
Interstate business.
F. NJ. Hall Of Lincoln contended to shut
on the taking Of the elevation charge by
the terminal companies would mean that
the producers would get just that much
less for their grain No Individual. he said,
was complaining. II the railroads did not
give the terminals that elevation charge 1t
would mean freight rates would be that
much higher. The elevation charge was
given because Of the competition between
the railroads. he said. II one road brought
in grain to Omaha or Lincoln another road
would pay Ia cents II it was loaded into
It's cars for shipment east.
]. w COPYRIGHT OF Fremont explained
that a. terminal elevator was where the
groin was stored and treated. II contained
facilities for loading and unloading not con-
tanned in other elevators
Exceptions by Defendants.
The following exceptions by defendants
TO report OF referee was filed by Attorney
Courtrfght:
Come now the defendants, Dun Grain
Towaer GompS nSiaf RAY HSe soSnei
der, Frank Fowler; Crowell Lumber and
Grain Company. CHRISTOPHER C.. Crowell.
tr.; Evans Grain Company, John T. Evans.
defendants herein, and each separately and
sevorally. and for themselves alone. except
TO findings and report OF the referee filed
herein. and TO his ruling upon the admls-
sion Of evidence, and to his conclusions of
law In the following particulars:
objection To question and answer No. 524.
and IN considering the same as evidence.
the date, contents. sender and sendee Of
a written instrument which the witness
soid he then had In his possession. That
BY the fact that It is cited in support OF
:. The referee erred in giving undue
weight. or any WEIGHT at all, to questions
and answers Nos. Ii4 and 745. In support
of indIng ~ the referee copies this evidence
as follows: " DO you know whether that
policy has been pursued constantly from
that time until the present time? Answer.
and have never heard OF II being changed.
Question. How recently have you knowl-
sesers q he Tsbt that
within month or two The referee
then adds THAT was on August Il. 1905.
the business and had himself been a men,
Der of the association for years" The
referee credits this testimony to worraII
while In fact Il was the testimony OF
Peavey, who was never a member OF the
association, had not been in the employ OF
with the business. and on cross-examination
At questions 1852, il64, 1855 and l16s, he IL
shown to be giving hearsay evidence only
from an undsclosed source, where he says
can't say / had personal knowledge
OF any transactions" Besides. the two
months limit mentioned carried the date
prior 20 the Junkin bill.
3. The referee erred in giving any weight
TO question No. 1912 which he quotes In
support OF finding ~ and which is similar
10 the above. Here again the sixty days
limit mentioned by the witness carries
back prior to the Junkin bill. Besides, al
Ncs 1882, 1873 and 1884 II Is found that thi,
-