New-York tribune., 1906-11-17
sTGAR TRUST ON TRIAL
n PALMER ON STAND.
, .,,,,s Comedies Some Points, as
in Central Case.

, Sugar Refining Company OF
Ine n1aced on trial yesterday before
New -. ., the United States Circuit Court
9a1so ..s-oa Of having accepted rebates in
m - . The Flkins act The rebates
Tio'S''1 - $4,000. It is charged, were &C.
sn0",-' 7ana On the previous day the New
cepleu - v-as found guilty of having given
York Ce1tTe4 va"
the rebates, ..,o-. ,,o.-.s
,-s.,5 the sugar company. II was headed
I" Parsons and included Tompkins K.
y 80 ex-Judge Alton B. Parker and for
.-,tsssador Joseph H. Choate. The prosecu-
u'' attended to by United States Attorney
7. sti-nson assisted by Henry a. Wise.
-soo, as the case was called a motion TO dis
.ra Indictment was made. but was promptly
lied bv Judge Holt About two hours
=. occupied in filing the jury box In ex-
4-,re each taIesrran counsel for the defence
-. q = point 10 learn what paper he read.
:, his openlng address 70 the jury Mr.. Wise
..f5 that the prosecution would show that the
ss,andaut accepted The rebates from the New
v,-- Central II 1908 several months subse-
,Bent 70 the passage Of the Elktns act, and IN
ssrg 81 was aware that II was violating the
sw
r,-46 z. Hearst, connected with the sales de-
,s-rrnent Of the corporation in 1902-'03 was
.sus6 as the first witness. The routing Of all
sugar shipments was. he said. under the direc-
tion Of Lowell II. Palmer. head Of the traffic de-
uartnent Of the sugar company. All sugars
were 50 billed. the witness said. that the con-
signee paid the 1reights upon receipt Of the
goods
When the prosecution called George T Rob
srts. assistant auditor. 70 show what the sched-
ued rates for sugar from New York to Cleve-
land we're IN 1902, Judge Parker and Mr. McLIl-
rsine promptly objected on the ground that the
alleged crime was in 1903. and the rates OF 1902
were 1rarlate-ial Judge Holt overruled the OBJ
lection, NJ. Roberts then testified that the rate
n question was q cents q hundred pounds.
James s. Trevor. q former freight clerk in the
employ o. the defendant, was called and swore
that al bills OF shipment had to have the 20. x"
Of Nj Palmer. the head Of the department It
then came out that the agreed statement Of
facts conceded by the defence was the anne
as the gtipulzioas made between the govern
rnent and the New York Central In Thursdays
trial
The trial continued with an extended examiaa-
ton Of Lowell II. Palmer, for many years the
head OF the defendant companys trafio depart
ment chief executive OF the corporation in 1901
during Z. O. HaveIneyer's absence IN Europe.
and interested IN the Brooklyn Cooperage Com
pauy end the Brooklyn Transportation Com
pany both IN the employ OF the Sugar Trust
To Ell questions put TO Mr. Palmer by the
prosecution the defence strenuously objected.
but Judge Holt invariably decided with the gov
eminent That Thomas Riley was Mr.. PaImeTs
chief assistant was the first point brought out
ny NJ. Wise. AIr. Riley, II is said, furnished
the government with much OF the evidence used
n these prosecutions. That Nathan s. GlIilford
and Mr.. POneroy. vice-president and general
traffic manager. respectively. Of the New York
Central, were consulted regarding rates for
sugar shipments by the witness was the next
point for the government
Then the agreement made by the witness and
Nj Pomeroy, introduced In Thursdays trial
against the Central, was put in evidence. IN
Ger il the rate between Brooklyn and Cleveland
vas reduced from the published tariff rate Of
2 cents to 15 cents. To obtain the actual pay
mem one clause Of the contract provided that a
Palmer personally 10 Nr. Pomeroy personally
correspondence showing that rebates were al
oNeq with the knowledge Of ViCe-President
GulIord was introduced as evidence. A clause
showing z rebate Of six cents a hundred was
allowed on all goods consigned TO points west
o. Cleveland and four cents on all goods con-
tlgneo % Cleveland and not reshipped was also
= letter from c. r. Heiche, at that time secre-
taTy - the American Sugar Refining Company
was read. This was in reply TO one asking
"here and how the six cents TO be returned as
an oVercharEe was TO be collected. Mr. Hecke's
.tuer SAID that the money would be paid into
ne ee1en1arcs commission account. and finally
% % NE credit of The Brooklyn Transp ortation
COMPANY This is said 10 have been the +yeI-
low dog" fund of the defendant.
MI Palmer was asked If he had written a
Iel,er n 1Lr. Helcke asking him if he had
lC.ec tre recently enacted EIkins act and
1e-Ahg him that business must be transa acted
somehow despite the law. The witness pre-
sl-leQ that II was written by Nj Riley, his
ess-s-an- After he had looked at the sig
i.al1Ie S-T. Palmer guessed he had written
IN the trial
The check for $4,000 drawn by a bank in
bu1a.o and paid 10 Mr.. Palmer, representing
le a-eged rebates, was introduced IN evidence
1es,lis Ny NcIlvaine's attempt TO get f. past
N--AoHl re7rg read 70 the jury by admitting irs
czlsJence- To all Of this evidence the defence