Los Angeles herald., 1907-11-08
RAILROAD is
FOUND Gull TY
ON 66 COUNTS
JUDGE WELLBORN IMPOSES
$4,000 FOR EACH
GRANTS THIRTY DAYS TO FILE
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
According to Amount Involved Mon
ster Fine Is Greatest Ever Inn
posed In History-oscar
LaWier Triumphant

Fines aggregating 900 were imposed
by Judge Olin Wel,born of the United
States district court of the southern d.
vision of California upon the Santa Fe
Railroad company yesterday for granting
rebates to. the Grand Canyon Lime and
Cement company in violation of the FL
kins law These rebates are alleged to
have been granted in connection with the
shipment of lime from Nelson, Ariz., to
Los Angeles.
The railroad was indicted on sixty-sx
counts by the grand jury on January 8
of the present year. The fine imposed
by Judge We.lborn yesterday represents
a fine of $4,000 on each of these counts.
According to the testimony brought out
at the trial of the company on September
80 the unlawful concessions aggregated
not more than one per cent of the total
traffic. or $780, 90.
For this reason the fine is said by at
torneys to be without a parallel, while
attorneys for the company do rot hesitate
to say it has been placed at an amount
altogether too high.
Asks for Time
| The decision was read by Judge Well
| born from the bench in his court room in
the Tajo building. He had scarcely CON
| cluded 1t when Attorney E. w. Camp,
representing the company, and the man
on whom notice of the indictments was
served the day after they were returned
| by the grand jury, arose and asked stay
OF execution. He requested the court to
| delay execution until January 1, stating
he wished to prepare a bill of exceptions
and take other steps he might deem adj
| visable.
! At the close of Mr. Camps request
Oscar Lawler, United States district at
| torney and the man who has conducted
the case against the railroad company,
arose and objected to any such delay be-
ing granted. He stated he would not OBJ
lect to the convicted defendant being al
lowed thirty days, and after some hesita-
ton Judge Wellporn agreed TO this mo-
ton. The court then informed Mr. Camp
if at the expiration IF that time 1t was
found necessary that more time be
granted an application for an extension
would be considered on it's merits.
Despite the fact that the railroad at
torneys made no definite expression of
the course they intepded to pursue, it is
understood Attorney Thomas Norris, COR
sci for the company, will file notice of
appeal in the case soon.
Judge Reads Opinion
At the rendering of the decision yester-
day Judge Wellborn departed from his
usual custom and read the opinion which
prefaced the judgment.
When he mounted the bench at 1890 he
found the court room crowded with
scores of interested persons who filed the
place to it's utmost capacity. Attorneys,
laymen, newspaper men, stenographers
occupied every inch of available space,
testifying to the great interest the case
has attracted.
At the small table in front of the judges
stand and a trihe to the right was At
rorney e. w. Camp, the representative
of the convicted corporation; Oscar Law
Ter, United States attorney and A. /.
Mccormick, his assistant.
II AS Judge Wellborn took his seat the
silence of the room was broken only by
the rustling of papers as the stenog
raphers prepared to take notes of the de-
cision The judge leaned forward and
unfolded the paper on which the de-
cisior was written.
In a clear, even voice he then read as
follows
Judge WeIIborn's Decision
The defendant, after fair trial. be-
. fore an impartial jury, with able
representation by attorneys of high
, standing and eminent attainments has
been convicted of the offenses charged
in the indictment ard it now remains
forthe court to pronounce against 1t
the sentence of law.
1t is obvious to the commonest un-
derstanding that, in the practical
demonstration of penal laws the ad-
justment of punishment to crime is
matter of no incorsiderable difficulty.
In the very nature o. things there can
be no fixed rules for an accurate
measure of the former and hence it's
extent must be confided largely to ju-
: dicial discretion.
! The Elkins law, under which the de-
fendant has been convicted, prescribes
as the punishment for its violation
fine of not less than $1,000 nor more
than $4,000
Where, in a particular place, the de-
fendants proven guilt is of an ex-
tremely aggravated form, as some
times occurs, or where the circum-
stances of another case so mitigate
the offepse as that 1t is mere tech
:. nical violation of laws, the duty of the
judge is clear. to impose In the one
case a maximum penalty and in the
other the minimum penalty.
Experience, however, shows that a
neutrality-suspicious. large majority
of convictions under laws where the
limits of punishment are broad, occupy
intermediate grounds. and in such
9 cases just what punishment fits the
offense is always, to the judicial mind,
5 serious and perplexing question.
5 In order to rightfully answer this
$ question, the policy of the law and
the mischiefs 1t was designed to rem
edy, as well as the peculiar fact OF
|. the case in hand, are to be considered
and to each circumstance should DO
given the weight to which 1t is duly
entitled.
The situation which now confronte
me is of the kind just described. And
the case at bar public Justice does not
call for the highest nor admit OF the
: lowest penalty. The right Of the mat
' ter lies somewhere between these two
/ | extremes.
+ For a quarter of century congress
! has sought to 50 regulate commerce
1 between the states and territories az
(Continued on Page Thxos.>