The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-01-26
HAD MERCY upon
TWO REBATERS
Judge Smith Mcpherson Omit
ted Jail Sentence and Fined
Thomas and Taggart.
BOTH MEN PLEADED GUILTY
CELEBRATED CASE BROUGHT TO
AN END.
BOTH MEN PLEADED GUILTY

Kansas City, No, Jan. 25.-George L.
Thomas, freight broker of New York,
and l.. B. Taggart, his clerk, pleaded
guilty in the United States court today
TO a charge of cOnspiring to pay re-
bates to shippers. Judge Smith Nc
Pherson then fined Thomas 81 900 and
Taggart $4,000 emitting the Jail SEN
fences previously assessed. Both de-
PENDANTS were in court and after SEN
tence was passed checks covering the
fines were rendered and accepted by the
judge. This was one of the most i'm
portant rebate cases tried In this coun-
try and the Jail sentence which was
omitted today was the first sentence of
Imprisonment ever passed for a similar
offense.
Thomas Freight Broker.
George L. Thomas maintained a
brokerage Office in New York City, and
represented practically all the impor-
tant shippers in Missouri and MISSISSIPPI
pi river points under a contract to route
their freight from the east and to col
Iect overcharges in freight bills Thorn
as and Taggart were indicted in De-
eember, 1905, charged with conspiring
with Barton Bros, wholesale shoe mer-
chants of Kansas City, to pay rebates
on the latter firms shipments. In the
trial of the case it was brought out that
Thomas had also agreed to secure re-
bates for other merchants. They were
found guilty on June %, 1906
Thomas, as the principal was fined
$4,000, and sentenced to serve four
months in Jail. and Taggart was fined
$4,000 and sentenced to serve three
months in jail.
Verdict Reversed.
An appeal was taken and the YER
dict was reversed on the ground that
the lower court had failed to instruct
the jury on the presumption of the in
nocence of the defendants, a technical
point. At the time Thomas and Tag
CART were found guilty, the following
other Verdicts were returned in the fed
eral court on charges of making con-
cessions and accepting and conspiring
to accept rebates:
Swift & Co, $4,000; Cudahy Packing
company, $4,000; Armour Packing COM
pany, SIS. 600; Nelson Morris & Co, S15,-
600; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rail- |
way company, $50. 200.
The fines assessed against the pack |
ing companies were affirmed April % !
last by the circuit court of appeals at |
st. Paul. The Burlington case, which |
was appealed. is still pending.
Asked for Mercy.
When the case of Thomas and Tag
CART was called before Judge McPher- |
son this morning. Judge o. NJ. Spencer
of st. Joseph, Mo, general counsel of !
the Burlington railway, entered a plea
OF guilty on behalf of the defendants
and appealed for leniency.
Judge Mcpherson before passing SEN
tence upon Thomas and Taggart, re-
viewed the case.
He said that, although the verdict had
been reversed by the court of appeals.
it was simply on a technical point, and
that the government was successful on
every question In the case of the slight
est Importance.
The evidence" said Judge McPher-
son, showed that Thomas represented
some railroads with reference to. claims
for Overcharges and erroneous classif-
cations. The evidence did not show
from what source Thomas obtained his
money to make these so-called refunds
but in truth and in fact they were re-
bates. II is possible and barely posi-
Bile, that he obtained Z E money for his
he representing a very I
arge clientage. but while the evidence
Is not clear nor satisfactory in all de-
tails, a jury could well find, and was
justified in finding it was a fact that
he money thus obtained was from the
'ailway companies who were favored
With his routing and shipments. 1 have
10 doubt that such is the truth, and if I
such is the truth. the defendant, Thorn ,
Is, was a mere agency, or in common ]
a cats paw, for the railway {
l
Judge Mcpherson concluded: {
Some days since IL was announced I
hat the defendants did not care to pro- I
ong the contest, ut would change I
heir pleas from not guilty to pleas of c
utility. This court believes that it is its
uty by reason of the foregoing facts I
o show them consideration and CHM e
nate the Imprisonment feature. impos-
lg, however, substantial fines. (
In view of the entire situation and
f all the foregoing facts, and in the +
I'LL belief that the vicious practices of o
hese defendants and the payments of u
ebates have been stopped, and in the o
elief that the practice of rebating r
enerally over the country has been e
Continued on page 2. 9