The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1907-11-08
Could Have Compelled the
Company to Pay
S1,32O,0oo
INTENT IS APPARENT
Court Discards Railroads s
Plea That Ofense Was
Unintentional
Special By Leased Wire TO The Call

:. LOS ANGELES, Nov. IA fine
Of 5000 on each Of 66 counts, aggre-
eating s33O00o, was assessed today
against the Santa Fe railroad COM
Pany for rebating. Judge DIN Well
born might have mulcted the guilty
!: corporation in the sum of Sl,3zo,ooc
had he chosen to infict the maximum
:. penalty, but he determined upon what
he. called an 'intermediste" punish
p .nent The case was reviewed by the
court at length, in written opinion
Asgierein the oompany's intention OF
wrong doing was held to have been
apparent
CONVICTED on 6e COUNTS
The Santa Fe company was convicted
On October II by a jury IN the federal
court OF granting rebates to the Grand
Canyon lime and cement company OF
Arizona. 1t was found guilty on all
of the 6s counts charged in the in
dictment after but an hours deiibera-
fion. The rebates which were given
on shipments of lime and cement from
Nelson. Ariz., to Los Angeles. ranged
tn amounts from 35 cents 10 SIS. The
-cmpany claimed thst these amounts
we're not rebates on the regular freight
rate. but were in the form OF damages
10 goods shipped, which were allowed
after such claim had been regularly
presented and proved in each instance.
The. court today did not take that
view Of the case. however. and said
that it was not convinced by any
means that these amounts represented
bona hde settlements Of claims"
After reviewing the circumstances Of
Sire case and the interest Of the Elkins
law, Judge WeIborn said:
b. II am inclined TO think that the de-
fendants underlying purpose in the
transaction complained OF was to foster
on its own lines Of road an industry
p which would permanently contribute to
+, fts traffic against competitors in other
Localities depending upon other lines
~or transportation for access to market.
What the defendants motives and pur-
tafnly determined from anything in the
record nor IS 1t necessary now that
this should be done.
.: .. CONCESSIONS INTENTIONAL
u am satisfied that the evidence
shows. ss was distinctly and forcibly
stated by Mr. Lawlor, the district at
torncv. that the concessions were In
1entionalIy and Systematically made,
and ii is hard TO believe that the de-
-1cndant did not know that they were
unlawful departures from its estab-
Isbed tariff
AT all events, ignorance OF the law
under the circumstances OF this case
would imply a degree OF negligence
vel nigh equivalent TO guilty knowl-
edge. These latter considerations will
not permit me to classify the present
case as one which calls for the lowest
penalty the law allows.
Rejecting then. as unsuited TO the
present case both the maximum and
the minimum penalties. I must find
somewhere between the two. such me-
-dium as under all circumstances of
lie case seems to meet its Just re-
quireinents and thereupon pronounce
the sentence which. while not unduly
severe. viii yet effectively serve as a
perpetual warning to all persons
against like omenses in the future.
THE judgment Of the court is that
the defendant be sentenced to pay a
fine OF $4,000 on each count OF the in
dictments"