The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-06-12

company had no right to make a con-
tract that would extend beyond the
time of fling new schedules with the
commission at Washington fixing the
rate to the general public at higher
and different rate than that covered
by the contract He continued:
~And when the amendatory rate
east of the Mississippi river was fled
with the commission August s. and the
defendant knew Of the same, 1t could
not knowingly receive q less rate or
concession than that paid by the gen
eral public without being guilty Of re-
cetving an unlawful concession, pro-
vided that the same was thus received
by any kind Of device as hereinafter
recited. This is SO because the right,
privilege and liberty of contract usu-
ally existing between all persons and
corporations is modified and con-
trolled by that provision Of the con-
stitution which gives to congress the
right to regulate commerce between
the states and foreign nations"
Judge Mcpherson, in concluding,
said: 1T is important for you to de-
termine whether the concession of II
cents per 100 after August from the
rates covered by the schedules then
on file with the commission was the
result of a device and whether done
with guilty intent. 1t must have been,
before you can convict the result OF
a device and with a guilty intent, be-
Gd4HG II LAAC supper IA4 AAOt nAAAOW A.
was receiving concessions and did not
have a guilty intent no crime would
be committed. As to device Is meant
that which is devised or formed by de-
sign-a eontrivance, a project. a
scheme to deceive, a stratagem or an
artihce."
After the jury retired A. s. Van Vol
kenburg, district attorney, announced
that the government and the attorneys
for the defendant had practically agreed
upon a statement of facts in the case
of the Chicago Burlington & Quincy
railway, which is under indictment
charged with granting concessions to
the packing companies whose case was
on trial today. No witness will there
fore be examined in the Burlington case
which probably viii come to trial this
afternoon.
After the instructions were finished
Alexander New and Frank Hagerman,
for the defendant packers, asked the
court to make the following Instructions
which were overruled:
1. The jury viii return a verdict for
defendant.
2. The Indictment in this case is in
sufficient to warrant a finding Of guilt
as against the defendant.
8. The evidence in this case Is insuffi-
cient to warrant a finding of guilt
against defendant
4. If the shipment in question was a
true export shipment to a foreign port
in a foreign country then the verdict
should be for the defendant.
8. If you fail to find that defendant
did some act in the western district of
Missouri, then the verdict should be
for defendant
6. The fact that the transportation of
the shipment was through the western
district of Missouri Is sufficient to vest
jurisdiction in the court and the provis-
ions of the act Of congress of February
19, 1903. (32 statutes at large 84T), insofar
as they purport to authorize q prosecu-
tion in any district through which the
transportation may have been conduct
ed. is. as to this defendant, violative Of
section OF article of the constitution
of the United States of article VI of the
amendments to said constitution.