The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1908-03-17
DECISION IS
SUSTAINED
Packers and Railroad
Must Pay.
MISSOURI COURT IS UPHELD
Elkins Act Applicable Trans
portation ANY ere.
su.ties Day q s.y Court Also Aa-
sosnces Tn, d Applicable
Al,hs : shipper ..a
Carrier.

Washington, March 16.-The proceed
lag by the Government against the Ar
mour Packing Company, Swift q Co.,
Morris q Co.. and the cudahy, Pack
ing Company. all OF them operating IN
Kansas City. Kan, under which the
companies were each fined $4,000 cy
the United States Circuit Court for the
western District Of Missouri. on the
charge Of receiving rebates contrary 70
the provisions Of the Elkins act. was
decided by the Supreme Court OF the
United States today. adversely 70 those
The courts opinion was announced
by Justice Day. who held that the Elk
ins act Is applicable to Transportation
anywhere, and that an onense Is NOT
confined to the initial poin. ne ESQ o
held Il applicable alike to shipper ana
carrier.
The decision Of the lower courts in
the complementary case against the
Chicago. Burlington and Quincy Rail-
rnad Company holding that company
responsibie for granting the rebates to
the packers and finding that company
guilty for the offense also was AZ
firmed.
Justice Brown dissented from the
view OF the court on the ground sna -
0GCIHlQu
enntract which, he said, shocks ms
sensa OF iustice." The Chief Justice
and Justice Peclkham concurred IN JUS.
fica Brewers decision. They ALSO nsto
the Missouri court TO be without jufis-
sThe four packing companies mention.
ed In the Washington dispatcn wsse
convicted IN the United states -
trlet court Of receiving concession
a. s,port shipments Of paektng house
nrosI,,ekn. ana fined by Judge smith
Mephefson here on June az, lsOs.
80 aar,,e time the Chicago burlington
srd Quincy Railroad Company wa
RSed sls.e0o for granting ceneessson,s y
and George u. Thomas 81 rev 49, = :.
| 4 freight broker. and y ~ - - !.
Esis clerk we're hned ana slsv sa.s -.
! sentences for uonspiring 70 rsceiss
Concessions from railroads
Recenfly Thomas and Taggart threw
thauaelveg upon the mercy OF tne
court. and Judge McPherson withdreW
fha stef1 sentences. the Defendants pay
ing fifeir fnes and being released. Ins
Burliugfon's case Is now IN the onitec
states Supreme Court
The fines against the packine nous a
the burlington, and Thomas and Tag
~srt were assessed after lengthy
fsiaI IN which many, witnesses testified
ii cases of CONCESSIONS granted ano
receivad. The packing companies were
convicted Of receiving concessions N
having accepted a rate Of 20 cents 3
hIndred pounds oIiA export shipments
from the Burlington road, together
with connecting lines between TINS
mississippi river and New York, wnen
the published tariff was IS cents. anc
the burlington was convicred OF grant
Ira these concessions,
the validity OF the Elkns law wa
attacked and 1t also was contepded tina
no real offense had been committed; ou
the principal defense was the conten
tion that in view Of the fact that thu
shipnnents had originated in Kansas
the Missouri court was without juris
diction. The Court 0f Apeals als'
was called upon TO pass on this point
and II held that the receiving OF re
nate is a continuous crime. 1udiciabl
an sany court of the United States hav
ing jurisdiction of crimes through
whose district the transportation i
conducted.
AS the goods were carried througl
Missouri, the Circuit Court of Appeal
Concluded that the Circuit Court wa
eompetent to try the cases, and the Su
prerne Court upheld this view.
Justice Day said he was aware tina
such construction might interfere will
| contracts, but that IL was for Congress
IL deal with that question.