Crittenden press. [volume] (Marion, Ky.) 1879-1907, 1906-12-06

that basis-that is, II this discrimination
In favor of this particular shipper was
made with an Ia instead of a % cent
rate and the tariff rate was maintained
as against their competitOrs-the re-
suit might be and not improbably would
be that their competitors would be driven
out OF business. This crime is one which
In Its nature Is deliberate and premedl-
tated. l think over a fortnight elar sed
between the date of Palmers letter re-
Questing the reduced rate and the answer
grant IT, and then for months after
wards this business was carried on and
these claims for rebates submitted month
after month and checks in payment OF
them drawn month after month. Such
a violation OF the law. In my opinion, in
Its essential nature, is very much
more henous act than the ordinary
common, vulgar crimes which come be-
fore criminal courts constantly for pun
ishment and which arise from sudden
passion or temptation. This crime in
this case was committed by men of
education and OF large business expert
ence, whose business standing in the
community was such that they might
~ Fave eh been expected pc to set an example
tenance of which alone in this country
the security Of their property depends.
II was committed on behalf Of a great
railroad corporation. which. like other
railroad corporations, has received gra-
tuitously from the state large and valu-
able privileges for the public's conven-
public functions and which Is charged
with the highest obligation in the trans
ACTION Of It's business to treat the citizens
It's business With Snjust discrim S Da
between different eitiEens or different
classes of citizens This crime in its
and prost one of wSie zone w w139 s S,sSy
to obtain. The interstate commerce act
was passed in 1881, nearly 20 years ago.
Ever since that lime complaints OF the
era nf ho "a ANy Nall a. Aaa
common, urgent, lnslstent. and altho
the congress has repeatedly past legis
lation endeayoring TO put a stop to this
upon which to bring prosecution in these
cases is so great that this is the first
case that has ever been brought in this
court, and. as | am informed. this case
and one recently brought in Philadelphia
are the only cases that have ever been
brought in the eastern part OF this coun-
try. In fact. but few cases OF this kind
have ever been brought in this country.
east or west. Now, under these circum-
stances, I am forced to the conclusion,
in a case in which the proof is so clear
and the facts are 20 fragrant, II is the
duty OF the court to hx a penalty which
shall I'm some degree be commensurate
with the gravity OF the offense. AS be-
tween the two defendants, in my opinion,
the principal penalty should be imposed
on the corporation. The traffic manager
in this case, presumably, acted without
any advantage to himself and without
by the direct authority or in accordance
with what he understood to be the policy
or the wishes of his employer.
THE sentence of this court in this case
is, that the defendant Pomeroy, for each
of the six offenses upon which he has
been convicted, be fined the sum of $1,000.
sum of 5000; and the defendant, The
New York Central & Hudson River Rail-
road company, for each of the six crimes
of which il has been convicted, be fined
-
in the aggregate TO the sum
of slOS. 600, and judgment to that effect
will be entered in this case"
Evasion by TechnIcaIitIeS.
In connection with this matter. would
like to call attention To the very unsat-
isfaCtOry state OF our criminal law, re-
sulting in large part from the habit of
setting aside the judgments of inferior
courts on techncalitles absolutely I'M
With the merits of the case,
and where there 10 no attempt to show
that there has been any failure OF sub
stantial justice. IL would he well to en-
act law providing something to the
effect that:
No judgment shall be set aside or new
trial granted in any cause, civil or Grim
inal on the ground OF instruction of the
jury or the improper admission or re-
lection of evidence, or for error as to any
matter of pleading or procedure unless.
application Ia made. after an examina-
ton OF the entire cause. il shall affirma-
lively appear that the error complained
o. has resulted In miscarriage OF
Justice.
In my last message | suggested the en-
actment of a law In connection with the
issuance of injunctions. attention hav-
ing been sharply drawn to the matter
by the demand that the right of apply
ing injunctions in labor cases should be
wholly abolished. Il Is at least doubtful
whether a law abolishing altogether the
use of injunctons i'm such cases would
stand the test OF the courts; i'm which
case of course the legislation would be
be wrong altogether 10 prohibit the use
Of injunctions. II lie criminal to permit
sympathy with criminals to weaken our
hands in UNFOLDING the law; and If men
violence there should be no impairment
of the power of the courts TO deal with
them I'M the most summary and effective 4
way possible. But 80 far as possible the
abuse OF the power should be provided
against by some such law as | advocated
last year.
lodged in the hands. of the judiciary a
necessary power which Is nevertheless
subject to the possibility OF grave abuse. /,
IL Is power tnat should be exercised !
ject to the jealous scrutiny of all men, !
and condemnation should be melted out ;
as much to the judge who fails to use
IL boldly when necessary as to the Judge |
who uses II wantonly or oppresslvely |
OF course, Judge strong enough TO be |
ft for his Office will enjoin any resort |
to violence or Intimidation. especially by I
conspiracy, no matter what his opinion |
may be of the rights OF the original quar- |
rel There must be no hesitation in /
dealing with disorder But there must
jUnctive power as is implied in forbdding 7
Iaboring men to strive for their own bst- /
terment In peaceful and lawful way !
nor must the Injunction be used merely
to aid some big corporation In carrying
cut schemes for its own aggrandizemene
II must be remembered that a prelim.
mary Injunction In a labor case, II
granted without adequate proof (even
when authority can be- found to support
the conclusions OF law on which II Il
may often settle the disput:
granted may do irreparable
wrong. Yet there ass many judges who