Los Angeles herald., 1906-06-23

court this term in which the defend
ants have been convicted OF giving
and receiving concessions and rebates.
Are you going to fine some and i'm
prison others?
President Roosevelt and his special
counsel split on the question Of how
the prosecution should be framed and
against whom. Can the district at
torney Justify his demand for greater
punishment in the Thomas and Tag
CART cases than he Is asking in the
packers and in the Burlington cases?
II so, on what grounds? Is Il on the
grounds of the larger sums Of money!
No. or different crimes? No.
Both were refunds on freight or con-
cessions. and your honor has well said
during this trial that there is no real
distinction. The crime is the same in
substance, but the form of the indict-
ment and the name of the crime is diff
ferent in the one instance than in the
other.
Calls It Mockery
"There is no talk Of justice in pur-
suing these defendants while allowing
the real offenders 20 escape. The es-
cape of one criminal is no Cefense for
the other; but Is It not a mockery on
Justice for this great national govern
ment to sit by and call one after an
other of these rich merchants, to allow
them to clear their skirts Of crime and
prosecution by telling how their own
agents at their solicitation obtained
money from the railroad for them?
"All this. too, by the consent and on
terms named by the government.
There is but one case in all the books
which equals 1t in the miscarriage Of
Justice. and that is the old case in
Massachusetts, where the negro man
and white woman were tried for CO.
habiting-the negro was convicted,
while the white woman was acquitted
by the same court and jury"
Judge Mcpherson said that he was
fully persuaded that the verdcts in the
packing house cases and the case Of the
Burlington were right and he assessed
the fines against all of the corporations
at the same time.
Discusses Merits of Case
In speaking of the Thomas and Tag
gart cases Judge Mcpherson said that
evidence had been adduced to show
that George A. Barton, for the firm of
Barton Bros, Wholesale shoe and leath-
er dealers, had received large sums of
money from various railways through
the defendants.
mot only so' continued the court,
but the following named concerns re-
ceived the sums stated from the rail-
ways:
Barton Bros, s6220: Robert Keith
Furniture company, Kansas City, $4,000;
Emery Bird -Thayer Dry Goods COM
pany, $4,000; Burnham- Hanna Munger
Dry Goods company, $44,566; Hagar-
ine-McKittrick Dry Goods Company,
so, 200; F. P. Kirkendall Shoe company,
$1,000.
so that, as nearly as can be gath
cred from the evidence, the defendants,
after deducting for their own services
from money received from railways,
paid to the concerns named within four
years as rebates the enormous sum of
SS2, 459. And the evidence fairly shows
there were other rebates paid by them.
''I assume all these concerns will be
proceeded against for receiving these
unlawful rebates, which can be done
either by Indictment or information, as
the last vestige of the plea of immunity
for corporations has been wiped out by
the decision of the supreme court of
the United States of March 12, 1906, in
the case of Hall VS.. Henkle."