The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-06-08
UNCLE SANS CASE.
A. s. Van vaIkenburgh Argues for
Government in Burlington Suit.

Kansas City. No, June s.=A S.
Van Valkenburgh, district attorney
Tor the western district of Missouri in
the federal court here this morning,
presented the governments side in the
cases or Armour & Co, Swift & Co.
Cudahy & Co. and the Nelson Morris
Packing company, on trial on a charge
OF accepting rebates from the Burling-
ton railway on export shipments. Mr..
Van Xalkenburgh declared that the
packing companies acceptance of a
rate of % cents hundred pounds
when the regular tariff was 35 cents
was a plain violation of the interstate
commerce act.
The case probably will be given to
the jury early this afternoon.
Mr.. Van Nalkenburgh in arguing
the governments side of the case ad-
dressed himself to four propositions
as follows;
Has congress power to legislate
respecting export rates.
2-Has congress so legislated and
has it conferred upon the interstate
commerce commission authority re-
specting the publication and adhesion
riage to the port of transhipment is
concerned?
SIS this rate such a true rate, de-
pending upon the facts and circum-
stances without the jurisdiction of the
interstate commerce commission as to
bring this case within the reasoning OF
the Texas & Pacific railway versus in
terstate commerce commission (12 ..
50 and to take this case out of the
operation Of the interstate commerce
law?
would the contract between the
packers and the Burlington railway if
valid when made, protect the packers
against prosecution for violation of the
sixth section of the interstate COM
merce act, as amended by the act of
February, 1908, if they persisted in
accepting q rate which was in effect a
| concession after that rate had been
raised by the railway company and er-
fective on and after August z 1905.
Mr.. Van Valkenburgh said that the
first three propositions had been settled
for the purpose of this trial by Judge
smith Mcpherson, the presiding judge
who had Overruled the demurrer to the
indictment. He therefore addressed
himself more in detail to the question
of whether the packers contract with
the Burlington railway protects them
in these cases. He said in the course
OF his argument:
''Since the passage of the EIkins
amendment the shipper is liable equal
" with the carrier, and the mere solic-
iting, accepting or receiving of a con-
No intent is necessary to the connie
ton of that offense. Where the specf-
fed intent is not essential, a mistake or
ignorance of fact, is quite as irnmater-
THE duty is laid upon the shipper
and it is incumbent upon him to guard
against violating either the law or the
spirit Of the law. If he ships and ac-
cepts a rate he is bound at his peril
to know that the rate he accepts does
not involve a concession from the pub
lished rate
Mr.. Van Valkenburgh says that the
packers knew of the actual rate of 35
cents at the time they made the ship
ment in the case at point and accept
ed rate of % cents. In closing he
said:
mo damage would have been entail
ed upon the defendants by observance
of the law. 1t will be noted that no
where in the evidence does it appear
that the shippers would have suffered in
the matter of their ocean rates, nor in
the matter of their foreign contracts for
the sale of their products by observ-
ing the published schedule. The ship
pers were simply seeking concessions.
preferences and advantages in the mat
ter of rates and the railroad was seek
ing tonnage without reference to the
mandate of the law