The Washington herald., 1908-01-05

Commission or this department. who could
judge Of the significance of any entries
intelligently and impartiaily.
Refused 10 stop Inquiry.
"Ascertaining that the Interstate Com
merce Commission had taken no action
looking toward such an inquiry as he de-
sired. I refused to interfere. Mr.. Lathrop
subsequently submitted the matter 70
yourself, and. If l am correctly informed,
made an application to the Interstate
Commerce Commission 10 order the in
quiry pending which he had asked that
this department require the proceedings
in Los Angeles to be stayed. but the COM
mission declined to take any action in
/ the premises.
THE grand jury. as the result of the
investigation thus conducted, found two
indictments. one containing ten and the
other sixty-six counts, each Of the said
counts charging the company with sep
arate instance Of discrimination. The de-
| PENDANT having pleaded not guilty. the
case was, in due time, tried before a petit
Jury. Judge wellborn presiding. and the
! following facts were developed by the
proof:
ION June IS. 1895, a tariff was published
/ by which the rate on lime from Nelson
Ariz., to Barstow and points South, in
| California, was fixed at $3.50 per ton IN
minimum carload lots Of 40000 pounds:
otherwise expressed. so per car. Not
withstanding this tariff rate the evidence
showed that in every Instance, without
! exception, where said minimum rate was
/ applicable. it was disTegarded, and in
/ lieu thereof the amount Of freight due
was determined by charging for the
actual weight at the rate of $3.50 per ton,
whether the car contained 20,000 pounds
4 or 50 600 pounds. During the period in
viewed the company had no scales at
/ Nelson. and the quantity Of lime loaded
| in the cars was only estimated by the
/ shipper. Under such circumstances the
station agent was required by his printed
/ instructions 70 state in the waybilI the
minimum weight Of $1,000 pounds, and the
minimum rate of $40. which he did In all
/ but seven out of about 80 waybills, not
withstanding It was ascertained by rail
road scales en- route that the great ma
/ jorty OF the cars contained from $1,000
/ to 5000 pounds of lime.
How Rebates Were Given.
1.-THE alleged rebates were given in two
ways: First. and principally. by a change
/ or correction on the face Of the favored
waybills. at the Los Angeles freight Of
/ fee. by reducing the weight and freight
/ from the established minimum TO the
actual weight; secondly, in some of the
/ cases where the fun amount of freight.
/ according to the tariff, had been paid by
] Z srl 4rrr,s ~
Warded by the latter 10 the Grand Can
/ yon Lime and Cement Company. which.
/ in turn, put In claims for overchaTge Of
/ freight against the railroad company for
the difference between the amount of
| freight paid, according 10 the tariff, and
/ the amount based upon actual weight"
| Evidence tending to show that the mini
mum was disregaTded In the case Of IA
vOred shippers, and that as little as If
/ teen tons was charged for, Is quoted, as
well as letters and memoranda showing
the Tefunding OF money as "overcharges"
The evidence, it is stated showed that in
! all but seven of 800 instances, where the
| shippers estimate of weight was accepted
/ by the company. the minimum Of 10000
pounds was used, although IN many in
stances the actual weight ran from 60,00O
to $4,000 pounds. There was, Il is stated,
/ In the books of the favored cement com.
pany an account headed santa Re Re
bates"
Fails to support Testimony.
The report continues:
AN employee Of the Grand Canyon Lime
and Cement Company who had practical
charge of all its dealings with the railway
company, was called as a witness by the
! government; he was not cross-examined
| in any way concerning any alleged dis
putes over the loss of lime between Mel
son and points of destination in Southern
| California, nor was he asked to explain
/ the claims which We're prepared by him
and paid by the railway company for
| 'overcharges of freight and which Mr..
| Ripley's letter states were paid in COM
| promise of such losses of line. One John
S Sehirm. the only other person with
whom il is suggested that disputes as to
loss OF lime took place, was IN the court
room throughout the trial The company
/ did not see fit TO call him TO the witness
stand and give him the opportunity either
to corrob0rate Gregson or to decline to
testify as to self-incriminating matters.
An agent of the Grand Canyon Lime and
| Cement Company at San Diego, through
whose hands had passed some OF the
shipments on account Of which rebates
We're allowed, was in attendance as a
| Witness and he also was not called by
| the defendant to sustain the testimony of
l=---->-- ---.--------ss---=s----.