The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-06-09

PLAIN VIOLATION OF LAW
POWERS OF CONGRESS IN SUCH
MATTERS DEFINED.

Kansas City, June s.-A. s. Van Val
kenburgh, district attorney for the
western district of Missouri, in the fed
eral court here this morning, presented
the governments side in the cases of
Armour & Co., Swift & Co. Cudahy &
Co. and the Nelson Norris Packing
company, on trial on a charge of &C
cepting rebates from the Burlington
railway on export shipments. Ar. Van
NalkenbuTgh declared that the packing
companies acceptance Of q late of %
cents hundred pounds when the regU-
lar tariff was 50 cents, was a plain vio
lation OF the interstate commerce act.
Powers of Congress.
AR Van VaIkenburgh addressed him
Relf 10 four propositions, IS fellows:
l. Has congress power " IegisIaus
respecting export rates2
> Has congress so legisIated. and has
II conferred upon the interstate COM
neTce commission authority respecting
the publication ard adhesion 10 such
rates insofar as ths-Tail carriage to the
Fort Of transhiDment IS concerned?
3 Is this rate such q through rate
depending upon the facts and circUm-
stances without the jurisdiction of the
interstate commerce commission as a.
bring mis- case within the reasoning Of
the Texas and Pacific raiIva- versus
interstate commerce COWUiss5Ur 162 L
81 and to take this case out Of the Op-
Grafton Of the interstate commerce law
l. Would the contract between thu
packers and the Burlington railroad, If
valid when made, protect the packers
against prosecution for violation of the
sixth section of the interstate commerce
act. as amended by the act OF FebTu-
airy. 1903. if they pers ISted in accepting
q rate which was I'D effect concession
after that rate has been raised by the
railroad company and effective on and
after Aug. Z, 1868?
Three Questions Settled
NJ. Van Nalkenburgh said tnat the
first three propositions had nCen set
tied for the purpose Of This trial by
Judge Smith Mcpherson, the presiding
judge. who had ovsTFuled the demurrer
TO the Indictment He, therefore, ad-
dressed himself more in detail 10 the
question Of whether the packers con-
tract with the Burlington railroad pro
tects them in these cases. He said, in
The course Of his argument
Since the passage of the Elkins
amendment the shipper is liable equal
- with the carrier. ans the mere sOlic-
iting, accepting or receiving OF con-
cess,ion or rebate is made an offeuss.
No intent is necessary to the completion
Of that Offeuse. Where the specified in
tent is not essential a mistake or ie-
norauce Of fact j. quite IS immaterial
IS mistake or ignorance Of law
Duty OF the Shipper.
The duty IS laid upon the shipper
and it is Incumbent upon him TO guard
sgaiust violating either the law or the
spirit Of the law. If he ships and a.
oepts a rate he is bound. at his peril
10 know that the rate he accepts does
rot involve q concession from the pub
ziShed rate-"
Mr.. Van NalkenbuTgh SAYS that the
packers knew of the actual rate OF 50
cents al the time they made the snip
IheEt in the case at point and accepted
a rate of Is cents. In closing he said
NO damage would have been cutailed
uDon the defendants by observance of
The Law. It viii be noted that nowhere
in the evidence does it appear that the
thIpDerS would have suffered in the
matter Of Their ocean rates, nor iU Che
matter o. their foreign contracts for
the sale of their products by observing
the published schedule The shippers
were simply seeking concessions, PREF
erences and advantages In the matter
f rates. and the railroad vas seeking
tonnage without reference 10 the man
date Of the law"