Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1909-02-24
STATE ANTITRUST LAW GOOD
Arkansas Case Decided Against Ham
mond Packing Company.
DEFENDANT LOSES ALL POINTS
Decision IL Important as Defining
Rights OF state 20 Regulate Out
side Corpora tiOns Doing Bus-
iness within 1t.

the United States today upheld the valid
1905 which provides a penalty of from
5000 to $500 for each offense and the for
feiture OF the right to do business in the
state. The decision was handed down in
the case OF the Hammond Packing COM
pany of Chicago. which, it was charged.
had combined with other packers to fix
the price of meats. against the state Of
Arkansas The case originated in the cir
cult court of Pulaski county, Arkansas.
where $4,000 fine was imposed. That
verdict was sustained by the Arkansas
supreme court whose finding was today
affirmed
The constitutionality Of the law was at
tackled on the ground that II impaired the
obligation of contract, denies equal pro-
lection under the law and stands in the
way of due legal process 1t was also
contended that inasmuch as the packing
company is an outside corporation its
offense. II it committed any which It de-
MED, was committed outside the state.
1t was also urged that the trial had been
irregular in that there had not been a
jury as required by the Arkansas con-
stitution in criminal actions.
Justice Whites decision was against the
gave especial consideration to the com
plant that where the company refused
to produce it's books in obedience to an
order from the court, a judgment was
given against it contrary to the federal
constitution. Justice White declared that
it was the duty of corporation to live
in the light of day and to "be prepared at
any time to exhibit it's proceedings to its
creator the state"
He added: ''As the Hammond company
absolutely declined to obey the order, and
stood on what 1t deemed to be its lawful
rights and privileges, II is not within our
province to afford relief because of an
error of judgment in this respect. We may
not hold that the statute and the order
were arbitrary and unjust in the particulars
asserted when they do not have that ef-
feet"
New York Central Must Pay.
The verdict Of the United States circuit
court for the southern district Of New
York, imposing a fine of S1Os,OOO upon the
New York Central railroad on the charge
of granting rebates to the American Sugar
company was today affirmed by the su-
preme court of the United States.
The rebates to the American Sugar Refln-
sugar In 1893 from New York to Cleveland
and Detroit six offenses were charged
END fines of $4,000 each were imposed by
the triaa court The government prosecuted
under the Interstate Commerce and Elkihs
laws. Between New York and Cleveland
the railroads published tariff called for a
charge of 21 cents per 100 pounds, while
the rate to Detroit was % cents. The cut
< nd N
the second 2 cents.
The court also rendered a similar deci-
sion upholding the lower court in the case
of shipment TO Cleveland in which fine
of $4,000 was imposed.
All Parties to Rebate Liable.
| The case of the United States against
the New York Central & Hudson River
railroad involved the question whether
railroad company. which is a party to
rebate transaction, but which was not the
initlatory road. can be criminally prose-
cuted for violation of the ElSins anti
/ trust law, was decided by the courts against
the company The New York Central was
| indicted In connection with number OF
other companies. including the Missouri Pa
cific. on the charge of granting rebates In
1903 TO the Brooklyn Cooperage company
! on cooperage material shipped from Poplar
Bluff. Ia, to Brooklyn, N. Y.
If was shown that all the railroads con-
cerned in the shipment had joint tariff
of IS cents hundred on such goods be-
tween the points named, and that all OF
them had been parties to rebate of 5Aa
cents a hundred on shipments made by the
Brooklyn company.
The New York Central was the deliver
| ing carrier and 1t replied to the complaint
by filing a demurrer, in which 1t took the
| position that as It was not the initial COM
pany II could not be held criminally
/ responsible under the law. The case was
heard in the United States circuit court for
the southern district of New York and the
demurrer sustained for the reasons given.
| The government Immediately appealed with
| the result that II obtained a reversal Of the
lower courts holding.
| Express Franks Illegal.
In an opinion by Justice Day in various
cases of the United States against various
| EXPRESS companies the supreme court OF
the United States today held that under
the Elkins law express companies could
not legally grant franks for the free
TRANSPORTATION of the property OF their own
4 employees OF bl Aiic thApit9No u NsANa -
press or transportation companies. The
decision held that to grant this privilegs
would be to exercise an undue preference
under the law, which prohibits all trans
portation companies from giving 10 any
one rates which are not included I'm the
published schedule. In his opinion Justict
Day said: 1T cannot be doubted that the
| property upon which franks issued by the
express company is within the terms oi
the act. Within the terms used by the
Elklns act such transportation enables one
class OF persons to obtain transportation al
different and less rate than thai named
in the published rates"
He concluded by saying that there wa
no reason why congress should not grant
the express companies the privilege en-
joyed by the railroad companies, but the
Law must be amended By congress and no
by the courts"
Negro Denied neheaFihH.
The case OF Mafcellus Thomas. a negrS
under sentence OF death on the charge Of
killing two men In Harris county. Texas
was decided today by the supreme oouri
of the United states against Thomas. Al
the grand jury BY which the indictment
Z