The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-06-14
Discriminated in Favor of the
 Big Beef Packers
SIGN STATEMENT OF FACTS
Road Sought to Get Out of Charge On Technicallty Which Failed to Im- press the Jury Suf-
 ficlentIy.

Kansas City, Mo-. June 19-The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad company was found guilty here late this afternoon by a jury in the United States district court on four counts of granting conces- sions on packing house shipments for ex- port to the Armour Packing company, Swift & Co.,, Cudahy & Co.,, and the Nell son, Morris Packing company.
 The conviction carries with 1t fine of from 5000 to $2000O on each count. Judge Smith McPherson, the presiding judge, deferred sentencing the defendant until June 22 All four counts are practically the same. The case of the Armour Pack ing company, on which instructions were read to the jury, charged specifically that the Burlington railway on August 27 1905, accepted shipment of oil from Kansas City to Liverpool at a rate that included a rate of 23 cents hundred pounds, Mis- sissippi river to New York, whereas the regular tariff at that time was 35 cents.
 Sign Statement of Fact.
 To simplify the case Judge VanValken- burg, district attorney. for the govern ment, and Judge o. M. Spencer of St. Joseph, representing the defendant com pany signed an agreed statement of facts which was in effect that the Burlington did contract with the packers to carry their product at 23 cents for the distance named or a rate of 49 cents for the whole distance from Kansas City to Liverpool. Half dozen witnesses were largely tech nical and testified pertaining to the tariffs in existence at the time covered in the indictment.
 Judge O. M. Spencer, in his argument for the defendant ,contended that the Burlington railroad had 8 joint rate under it's contract with the Clover Leaf and Lehigh Valley railroad to carry the pack ing house products at a rate which would have been valid under the present rulings of the court, had it been published. Hence the only crime, If any, committed was the failing to publish the tariff under the contract. The evidence showed, he said, the shipment was through ship ment to foreign destination The charge in the indictment was granting conces- sion from a portion of through rate. Such proposition, he contended, is un- known to the law. If a concession was
 
 through rate. and reduced the through rate to the amount of such concession, but did not and could not be offered to any fractional part of the through rate. The Burlington kept to its contract made in good faith and would prefer to be fined if need be, than violate its contract. The indictment, he said, Is the result of controversy with the Lehigh Valley rail- road over it's keeping it's portion of this l contract, and when 1t was unable to sus- tain itself 1t resorted to the government and Jugs the Burlington into court as a criminal.
 Violation of EIkins Act. l District Attorney VanValkenberg ar- guing for the government, said 1t was simply a plain case of violation of the Elkins act The Burlington railway had made a contract with the packing com panies at a rate of 23 cents hundred | and had continued to live up to the con- tract after there had been filed with the | interstate commerce commission an | amended tariff of 35 cents.
 Judge McPherson in instructing the jury 1 said that the Burlington railroad had 1 no right to make a contract for period | longer than the established rate of 23 cents which was inforce. To have carried 1 shipments for g cents after August 27, | 1905, when the tariff was raised to 35 cents, must be considered concession. The failure of the Burlington railway to file
 the schedule of 23 cents was immaterial. I The jury retired at o'clock and re- l turned their verdict at 5:35