Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1906-07-13
JUDGES ruling. is
AGAINST REBATERS
LANDS REFUSES TO DISCHARGE
EX-RAILRoAD OFFICIALS
ON EIGHT COUNTS.
DEFENDANTS TO BE
TRIED ON CHARGES

Notion for Dismissal on Two Points
Is Granted-Jurist Holds Switch
Charge Of 81 Car Given in Kan
sas City Is Illegal.
Chicago. July Judge X. M. Land
IS Friday overruled motion made in
behalf Of John NJ. Faithorn and Fred.
erick A. Wann, former executives of
the Chicago & Alton railway, on trial
charged with giving rebates to
Schwarzschild & Sulzberger, that the
cases be taken from the jury and
court order entered in favor Of the
defendants.
The motion was overruled as ap-
Oiled to eight of the ten counts in the
indictment charging rebates.
Deny Refunds Were Rebates.
The basis of the motion made BY
Che attorneys for the railroad men
was that the refunds, assuming that
tney mad been made, did not consti-
tute rebates as contemplated by the
law.
After consideration Judge Lands
granted the motion as applied to the
remaining two counts. and the de-
PENDANTS were held not guilty Of the
charges in the Indictment on these
two counts.
The trial Of the defendants on the
eight counts will continue, and pleas
by the defendants were asked BY the
court.
Judge Lands decision, which is
expected to have a far-reaching ef-
1ect on the rebate question, opens
with a review of the material facts
In the case. The rebating, he says,
Is involved in payments made to the
schwartszchild & Sulzberger COM
pany for hauling from the company's
plant in Kansas City, Kan, across
the river to the Chicago & Alton
Terminal in Kansas City, Mo.
The Judge says that it appears from
the evidence that prior to 1907 the
Chicago G Alton Railway company
charged the belt road four dollars a
car for hauls from the packing COM
pany's platforms, over the packers
private tracks and the belt line tracks
to the Chicago G Alton tracks, and
that the belt line paid one dollar to
the packing company for the part OF
the haul that was over the tracks of
the company.
Payments Made Direct.
Tnis practice is said to have been
known to the Alton company and con.
tinued until January /, 1901, when,
1or some reason which does not ap-
pear. but at the alleged request of
schwarzschild & Sulzberger. the ar
engagements were changed so that the
Alton company made the payments
direct to the packing company, in
stead OF through the medium of the
belt company.
Coincident with this change the
belt line filed new schedules show
Ing Its rates for moving, the packing
company's trafae to be three dollar
q car, which amount the Alton alb
sorbed In its tariff collected from
Schwarzschild & Sulzberger and paid
over to the belt road.
Court Outlines Case.
After quoting the interstate com.
merce law, which requires published
schedules Of rates, and: the EIkins
law. forbidding rebates lor cutting. OF
tariffs, the court says:
1t is argued in behalf of the de-
PENDANTS that If any section Of the
law is violated 1t is that provision
which requires the carriers schedule
to state the terminal charges and
rules which change the aggregate
rate. am unable to see, the force
OF this contention Plainly, the re-
turn by the defendant carrier to the
packing company of a part Of
the money paid by that shipper to the
carrier for the transportation OF the
shippers product is, not a charge or
rule or regulation within the meaning:
Of the law.
THE question lis whether or not
the payment so made is q device;
whereby the packing compsny's prop.
erty Is transported at less than the
ATOMS published. rate, which, as seen
above, includes, the service on the
belt company tracks. It would seem
that to state this question ia to an.
swer 1t. BY the word rate is not
mean merely figure or Aagures
printed on a/schedule filed WiAh the
Interstate commerce commission and
exhibited on the. walls of railway
station. The real rate is the alet
cost to the shipper Of the transport q.
don Of his property. This net amour {
IN the case before me, is one dollaa
car less than the carriers pub
iished schedule represent the rate to
be. Viewing the transaction from
the standpoint most favorable to de,
PENDANTS. 1t amounts simply to the
railway company assuming the cost,
OF getting the shippers property to-
the carriers rails for transportation.
substantial consideration not men,
toned in or contemplated by the pub.
Nshed schedules.
The ninth and tenth counts of the
indictment alleging the repayment to
the Schwarzschild & Sulzberger com.
pany by the Chicago & Alton Rail-
way company of passenger fares
amounting to $500, are dismissed
because the indictment does not all
lege the $1,000 passenger fare reim-
bursement to have been made as a,
means or medium Of thereby grant.
To- u h