The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-06-14
BURLINGTON ALSO A REGATVR
RlIIW ~ RgIDF0clILr n tHfv
HIfH fHF PlFkRRg


We tSutlWuet tNeV aeWess, rate wu'
ttlsd win CsWNmefrr tsuHw,ss,WW
kAsHAs CRY, June N A was fore.
cs-,ed by Tho Srtdicl In the hrhAte oasea
aaalns, four pachlng onc~rn Yesterday,
The CHICAGO, Darlington and Quincy vas
to-day convicted on four cudnta n granting
concessions on shlpuents oi Armour h Co,
Cndahy 4 To-, Swift 4 Co and the Neleon
Morris Packing COMPANY.
The case vas tried In the United States
District Court and the conviction carries
u ane of from si mn TO On. 900 In zach case.
Judge Smith McPherson, the presiding
Judge, deferred sentencing the defendant
until June %,
All four counts are practically tho same.
The case Of Armour A Co, on which n
strictions were read To the jury. charged
specifically that the Burlington Railway
on August II. 1905. accepted q shipment Of
oleomargarine oil from Kansas City to
Liverpool at a rate hat included a rate
Of 20 cents per 100 pounds from the Mis-
sissippi River to New York. whereas the
regular tariff at that time was 3; cents.
To simplify the case, A. 8. Valkenburgh,
district attorney for the Government. and
Judge o. NJ. Spencer Of st. Joseph, repre-
senting the defendant company. signed an
agreement, which was, In effect, that the
Burlington did contract with the packers
to carry their product at 20 cents for the
distance named, or at a rate Of ~ cents
for the whole distance from Kansas City to
Liverpool.
Half a dozen witnesses were examined
their testimony being largely technical
and pertaining to the tariffs in existence
at the time covered in the indictment
Those who testified were II. c. Davis,
general freight agent at New York for the
lie high Valley Railroad; Robert II. Dous-
man Of Philadelphia, auditor of the freight
department of the Iehigh Valley: NJ. A..
Gentle, agent at Kansas City of the Reading
Despatch, which operated in the interest
of the Clover Leaf, one of the roads: II. c.
Burnett Of New York, assistant general
freight agent of the Lehigh Valley, and
Ernest +. Bisbee, general agent at Kansas
City Of the Burlington railway, who was
commercial agent of that road in 1905 at
the time the 20 cent rate for the packers
was granted.
Judge o. NJ. Spencer, in his argument
for the defendant, contended that the
Burlington railway had a joint rate under
it's contract with the Clover Leaf and Lehigh
Valley roads to carry the packing house
products at a rate which would have been
valid under the present ruling Of the court
had it been published. Hence the only
crime, il any, committed was the failing
to publish the tariff under the contract.
The evidence showed, he said, the ship
ment was a through shipment to a foreign
destination. The charge in the indlct-
ment was granting a concession from a
portion Of a through rate. Such a PROPOSE
ton, he commended, Is unknown to the law.
If a concession was made at all, 1t was on
the entire or through rate, and reduced the
through rate the amount Of such concession.
but did not, and could not, be offered to
any fractional part of the through rate.
The Burlington kept to it's contract, made
in good faith, kept in good faith, and would
rather to be fined IL need be, than violate it's
contract. Whatever it's dereliction may
have been In reference to filing it's tariff
it can not be guilty az charged in the indict-
ment.
The indictment. he said. ia the result Of a
controversy with the Lehigh Valley Rail
road over its keeping it's portion Of this
contract, and when it is unable to sustain
itself it resorted to the law and took the
Burlington into cour as a criminal. That
such q state Of affairs exists lie to be de.
There should be. he commended, no inter-
ference by the Government in such con-
troversies. This, therefore, was simply
a question between the two corporations.
District Attorney A. 8, Van V~alkenburg,
for the Government, said simply
that 1t was a plain case OF violation OF the
Elkins act. The Burlington Railway had
made a contract with the packing com-
at a rate Of % cents a hundred, and
had continued to live up to that contract
after there had been fled with the Inter.
Commerce Commission an amended
Of IS cents.
Judge Mcpherson, In instructing the jury,
said the Burlington had no right to make
a contract for q period longer than the
rate Of 20 cents should be In
force. To nave carried shipments for 2s
cents after August II, 1905, when the tariff
was raised to IS cents. must be considered
q concession. The failure OF the Burling-
on Railway to fill the schedule of 2s cents
immaterial.
The jury retired at s O'Clock and re-
turned their verdict at 5:35.