New-York tribune., 1906-11-21
SUGAR TRUST GUILTY
GOT $4,000 IN REBATES.
Notion for Neso Trial Denied
Sentence I'm posed To-mOrrOso.

sided over by Judge Holt. late yesterday after
noon brought in verdict Of guilty in the case
of the American Sugar Refining Company. in
dicted for receiving rebates of S26 900 from
the New York Central freight charges for
sugar shipped to Cleveland. A fine OF S10SOOo
has been inflicted the New York Central for
rebatins. while Lowell NJ. Palmer, of the
Brooklyn Cooperage Company, has a fine Of
$4,000 agairst him for aiding In the rebating.
After the conviction of the American Sugar
Refining Company yesterday Judge Holt over
ruled motion for trial and fixed to-
morrow the date for imposing sentence on
the company and additional sentence on the
New York Central for the granting of the $685.
600 in rebateB
Before Alton B. Parker summed UP the case
for the defence yesterday, Joseph H. Choate
made argument for dismissing two counts
of tina Indictment the ground that the sugar
on which rebates paid was shipped from
New York before the passage of the Elkins
prohibiting rebates. In his argument Mr.. Choate
said there was no precedent in American law
for the enormous fine inflicted on the New York
Central 1t necessary. he sad to go back
several centuries 10 find penalty OF that size
amounting to over 100000, imposed even in
England, and that had been remitted by Par
lament as excessive and oppressive
The Ell1ins act Mr.. Choate asserted was not
meant to be retroactive. The shipper had not
been brought into the rebatng case until the
passage OF the act ana could not be held for
doing what at the time was not a crime under
any known federal enactment Congress he
said. had not intended punish shippers for
what they had done prior to February, 1903.
when there was no law that prohibited them
from seeking rebate concessions.
Judge Holt overruled the motion. saying that
the Elkins act amendment of the In
terstate Commerce law. which forbade discrm-
ination in freight rates, although not providing
the penalty for corporations, which was supplied
by the Elkins act. He held, he said, that the
payment of the rebates was a crime under the
Elkins act and the rebates paid after the
passage of the act He granted exception
which he said would protect all the rights of
the defence on appeal
Ex-Judge Parker, in his summing UP. con-
tended that the American Sugar Refining Com
pany had entered into the rebate contract be-
cause 1t wanted TO keep it's Cleveland trade and
had been offered lower freight rate than that
of the New York Central by all water route.
The company's customers not the company. had
profted by the contract. he said.
Referring to a statement of the prosecution
that the jury was a part of the government IN
the trial, Mr.. Parker said the jury must not infer
that the head of the government was behind the
trial. adding:
am sure that If the able and forceful head of
the government had been asked he would have
advised against this suit. He would have said
that this law was not intended as a trap but as
a corrective of bad habits, and he would have
advised square DEAL for this defendant.
Before United States Attorney Stimson
summed up for the prosecution there was
wrangle over an assertion by Mr. Parker that
proof had been shown that the carriage of the
sugars from the Brooklyn refineries TO the
freight yard of the New York Central was not
worth the $4,000 charged as rebates. Mr.. Slim
son wanted to recall Lowell NJ. Palmer to prove
the rate of carriage Mr.. Parker contended that
this would be reopening the case for the prose-
cution. The lawyers Contradicted each other
as 10 whether the proof included in the
stipulation between counsel. Judge Holt took
a hand in the discussion and restored conditions
TO what they were before Mr., Parker's assertion
made.
Mr.. Stmson argued that the Elkins act was
simply an amendment to the Interstate Com
merce act and a warning by Congress to
corporations that if they either paid or accepted
rebates they did so at their peril. Congress
clearly had the power to enact such law he
said, yet the American Sugar Refining Company
within six weeks after the enactment braZenly
collected S26,0OO in rebates from the New York
Central
Il, In his charge to the Jury Judge Holt explained
state Commerce law, and added:
The question for you to determine is whether
there was a rebate paid, whether the sugars of
tnls defendant We're carried at less rate than
the schedule tariff and whether the rebate was
paid with criminal intent.
The jury retired at 835 p. m and returned in
an hour TO ask if the acceptance of the SOC ono
by the American Sugar Refining Company con-
stitued misdemeanor. Judge Hold said il did
If the acceptance constituted a violation of the
Elkins law and the effect of its acceptance
amounted to the defendants sugar being shnDed
at a price less than schedule rates as published
Ex-Judge Parker objected TO the limitations
of the courts reply.
Ten minutes later the jury filed in again with
its verdict of guilty.
FOR Old ACE PFNCIONTC