The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-06-12
GUILTY,SAYSJU JURY
Packers Are Convicted in United
States Court.
Accepted Rebates From Burling-
ton Railroad.
PROVIDES FOR A FINE.
No Jail Sentence Accompanies
the Action.
Judge Mcpherson Instructs Jury
This Morning.
First Case Of the Kind to Be
Tried.
First Case Of the Kind to Be
Tried.

Kansas city. No. June 12.-Armour
&. Co. Swift & Co, Cudahy & Co. and
the Nelson Morris Packing company
were found guilty In the United States
district court here this morning of ac-
ceptfng concessions from the Chicago
Burlington & Quincy railway on export
shipments on packing house products.
Judge Smith Mcpherson of RED
oak. Ia. the presiding judge, stated
that sentence would not be assessed
until the case against the Burlington
railway. which is charged with grant
ing the concession to the packers, Is
concluded The Burlington's s trial Will
begin this afternoon. The law IN lhe
present case provides for flne only
and not a jail sentence
The cases are those Of Armour q
co. swift & Co Cudahy & CO., ana
the Nelson Morris packing company
They were charged in indictments re-
turned here last December Win ac-
ceptfug from the Burlington railway
concessions on shipments from the
Kansas City plants to New York Tor
export. The cases were consolidated
for trial purposes. The specific case
considered which is practically tdent-
cal with the others, is that charging
Cudahy * Co. with accepting rate OF
% cents a hundred pounds on ship
ment Of lard to New York Tor export
to Germany when the legal tarin then
on file with the interstate commerce
commission was 35 cents. The trial
began last week and after lengthy
argument was continued until this
morning when Judge Smith McPher-
son of Red Oak. Ia. the presiding
Judge, instructed the jury.
The present case bears unusual inn
portance In the list OF rebate trials TO
come up in this court for il IS the first
time that any concern has been
brought to trial before a jury on a
charge affecting export rates as ap-
piled to the interstate commerce act
Counsel for the defendants in this trial
contend that the court lacked 1urtsdic-
tiou which was overruled by Judge
Mcpherson, and then that when they
signed a contract covering the 23 cent
rate Ii was legal and that the BurIing
ton later raised its tariff to % cents.
Judge McPhersOn's instructions to the
jury covered the points fully.
Judge AfcPhersOn's Instructions.
Judge Mcpherson, in stating the
case. said that according to the indict-
ment returned against the defendant
the packing company signed contract
to run until December 81. 1908, in
which the Burlington 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
hundred pounds between the Aissis-
sippi river and New York; that while
this contract was in existence the Bur
lington railway filed with the in
terstate commerce commission an
amended tariff Of 35 cents on
these products from the Mississippi
river to New York; and that the de-
fendant continued to accept the %
cent rate after August s. 1905. when
the alleged ofrense was committed.
Judge Mcpherson says:
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 two statutes of February (, 1887.
and of February 19, 1903, the last
being amendatory of the former.
HAnd the court charges you that in
carrying the products from Kansas
City, Kan. In and through this division
and district to the Atlantic seaboard
ports, to there to be loaded on vessels
and carried to European ports. such
commerce was with foreign nations.
and was such commerce as is referred
TO and covered by the two enactments
of congress mentioned. In this case
the defendant packing company was
potn the shipper and the consignee-
And in making such shipment from
Kansas City, Kan, to, within, through
and beyond this division and judicial
district to an Atlantic seaboard port.
to be there placed upon an ocean yes
sci. to be carried to an European mort
both the defendant packing COMPANY.
the Burlington company, and the con
Meeting lines Of railroad each and all
are amenable to the two statutes in
question
And if the law has been violated in
the facts in evidence under the indict-
ment herein, then this court has turis-
diction to hear and determine the case
ana render such judgment as your yer
dice and justice requires.
And # such shipment of such
packing mousse products were made
from Kansas City, Kan, to the Euro
pean ports, as q through shipment
consigned by the defendant company,
at Kansas City, Kan. to itself at the
European port and this fact was so
known by the defendant when If made
the shipment and if this fact was so
known at the time by the Burlington
com mpany when it received the Drodnct
and IN turn each of the connecting
lines OF the railroad and the steamship
company knew such fact when receiv-
ing such product, then It is not con
lIol!hg that the receipts. contracts.
writings or bills Of lading were through
contracts or bills of lading.~
Judge Mcpherson said that i'm +hA
case on trlal there is no question as to
the reasonableness Of the rates nor as
10 the efnciency of the service, but the
question Is, Did the defendant pack
ing company receive unlawful conces-
sions in making such shiDmenfs9 He
recited the fact that while their con-
tract on the basis of the 23 cent rate
was IN erect they were aware of the
fact that the Burlington railway and
Its connecting lines had filed a 35 cent
tariff with the interstate commerce
com mission The court declared that
as matter Of law the question as TO
The validity Of the packers contract
was not a practical question ssbecansa
r0T 40 con- y ~ A.