The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-06-13
THE PACKERS
 Foly'D GUILTY Comrs : lies Convicted by
 Aansas Jury. r 4 REBATES FROM RAILROAD
A REBATES FROM RAILROAD
The Armour, Swift, cudahy and
 Morris Companies.
Trial of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Besins-Fines Ma, R. Assessed, But Jail sentences
 Are Not Possible.

Kansas City. June 12 Armour and Company Swift and Company. 7ufany and Company and the Nelson Morris Packing Company were found guilty here today of accepting concessions from the Chicago. Burlington and Quincy Railway on export shipments on packing house products.
 The case was given to the jury at 1o:40. The verdict was returned at 11:40.
 Judge Smith McPherson of Red Oak, Iowa, the presiding judge stated that sentence would not be passed until the case against the Burlir Ston Railway which is charged with granting the concessions to the packers Is conclud- ed. The Burlington's trial began this afternoon. The law in the present case provides for fine only, and not iail sentence.
 The cases are those of Armour and Company, Swift and Company, Cudahy and Company. and the Nelson Morris Packing Company. They were charged in indictments returned here last De- oember, with accepting from the Bur lington Railway. concessions on ship ments from Kansas City plants to New York for export. The cases were con- salidated for trial purposes.
 The specific case considered. which is practically identical with the others, Is that sharging Cudahy and Company with accepting a rate of twenty three cents a hundred pounds on shipment of lard to New York for export to Ger many, when the legal taritt on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission, was thirty-five cents. The trial began last week and, after lengthy argument. was continued until this morning, when Judge Smith Mcpherson of Red Oak. Iowa. the presiding Judge. instructed the jury.
 The present case bears unusual im- portance in the list of rebate trials to come up in this court, for it Is the brought to the trial bnfore jury on a charge affecting export rates as ap- piled to the Interstate Commerce act Counsel for the defendants in this trial. contended that the court lacked juris- diction. which was overruled by Judge McPherson, and that when they signed contract covering the twenty three cent rate. It was legal ard that the Burlington later raised its. tariff to thirty-five cents. Judge McPherson's instructions to the jury covered the points fully.
 Charge of McPherson.
 In stating tho case he said that &C., ccrding to the indictment returned against the defendant the packing company signed a contract to run until December S1. 1905, in which the Bur lington Railway agreed, with other connecting railways. to carry packing house products from the Missouri river to Germany, billed via New York; that the rate agreed on included a rate Of twenty-three cents hundred pounds between the Mississippi river and New York; that while this contract was jp existence. the Burlington Railway filed, June IT, 1905, with the Interstate Com merce Commission. an amended tariff of thirty-five cents on these products from the Mississippi river to New York and that the defendant continued to ac- August 6. 1905. when the alleged offense was committed.
 Judge McPherson said:
 The constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the States and with foreign nations. And in the exercise of this power Congress did enact the two statutes of February 4, 1887. and of February 19, 1903, the last being amendatory of the former
 And the court charges you that in carrying products from Kansas City, Kansas, in and through this division and district to the Atlantic seaboard ports to be there loaded on vessels and carried to European ports. such com merce was with foreign nations. and was such commerce as is referred to and covered by the two enactments sof Congress mentioned And if the law has been violated in the facts in evi- nsaAa hA fnI Iak. this court has Jurisdiction to hear and determine the case and render such judgment as your verdict and justice require.
 Contract Of No Force.
 And if such shipment of such pack ing house products were made from Kansas City Kansas, to the European ports. as a through shipment. con signed by the defendant packing com pany, at Kansas City Kansas, to itself at the Europeans port and this fact was so shown by the defendant when 1t made the shipment, and if this fact was so known at the time by the Bur lington company when it received the product and in turn each of the con meeting lines of the railroad and the steamship company knew such fact when receiving such product. then 1t is not controlling that the receipts, con tracts, writings or bills of lading, were through contracts OL Oltls OI
 Judge McPherson said that in the case on trial there Is no question as to the reasonableness of the rates nor a to the efficiency of the service, but the question is: Did the defen1ant packing company receive unlawful con- sessions in making said shipments?"
 He recited the fact that while their contract on the basis of the twenty three cent rate was in effect they were aware of the fact that the Burlington Railway and its connecting lines had filed fl thHty-five cent tariff with the interstate commerce commission. The court declared that as a matter of law the ouest tion as to the validity of the packers contract was not a practical question, because and for the reason that the defendant company had no right to make a contract that would extend beyond the time of filing new schedules with the commission at Washington, fixing the rate to tho gen : cal public at a higher and different rate than that covered by the con tract"
 He continued
 The Concession Unlawful.
 And when the amendatory rates