The sun., 1909-02-24
CENTRAL MUST PAY Big FINE
I. y. SUPREME COURT AFFIRHS
CONVICTION FOR REBATING.
Arkansas Antitrust Law Held TO Be
valid In Test case Affecting Packing
Companies Rights Of Express Com.
panlcs tnder Hepburn Act Defined.

Companies Rights OF Express COM
panlcs tnder Hepburn Act Defined.
WASHINGTON. Feb. 2s.-The fines aggre-
raung sl20,OOO imposed upon the New
York Central railroad and $1,000 upon
Fred l.. Pomeroy, its assistant traffic
manager. for rebaHng were afirmed
to-day by the United States Supreme
court Two cases were involved. one
embracing six counts, concerning the
rayment to the American Sugar Refining
Company OF rebates OF cents hundred
pounds on sugar shipped from New
YORK TO Detroit and the other rebates
Of cents on sugar sent to Cleveland.
The company was found guilty and fined
$4,000 on each count, while Pomeroy.
who conducted the negotiations, was
fined 81 900 on each of the six shipments to
Detroit.
In its appeals the railroad fled 10l as
sgnments OF error for the Detroit case
and eighty for the Cleveland case. raising
many new points against the validity Of
the Elkins act. Justice Day. who de-
livered the opinion Of the court. which
was unanimous. disposed OF all the
allegations that involved questions OF q
suDStdntd. cnaTacter, ueClueu tnat the
Elkins Law was valid and affirmed the
Judgment Of the court in imposing the
fines.
Taking up the contention that the law
vas void because Congress had no au-
thority to impute to corporation the
commission Of criminal offences or to
subject 1t to a criminal prosecution by
reason Of the things charged. thereby In
reality Furnishing the innocent stock
holders and depriving them Of property
without due process Of law; that the
statute deprived the corporation OF the
presumption OF innocence. which was
part OF due process In criminal prose-
cutions; that as there was no authority
shown by the board OF directors or
the stockholders for the criminal acts OF
the agents Of the company in contract
ing for and giving rebates they could not
I've charged against the company, Justice
Day said that as no action Of the board OF
directors or the stockholders could legal
ize crime the argument practically was
that owing to the nature and character
Of the company's organiza tion and the
extent Of it's power AMI authority a
corporation could not commit crime OF
the nature charged in this case.
Viii he aoS SnowledgeJ that some OF
the earlier writer's on common law held
that corporation could not commit a
crime Justice Day said that the modern
authority universally held to the con-
trary. as he showed by quoting many de-
cisiors Of the courts. IL was also we'll
established that a corporation might be
heid responsible for dana ges.for acts OF
its agent within the scope Of his employ
rnent. but not wantonly. recklessly or
against the express orders Of his princi-
pal
II was true, he said. that there were
some crimes which in their nature could
rot be committed by corporations. But
there was large class of offences, Of
which rebsting under the Federal statutes
vas one, wherein the crime consisted in
rurpose!y doing the things prohibited
tystatute. In that class OF crimes there
vas no good reason Why corporations
might not be held responsible and charged
With the purpose and knowledge OF their
agents acting within the authority con-
ferred upon them. If II were not 90
many offences might go unpunished and
acts be committed In violation Of law.
ubereas In the present case the statita
.i,, N s .-oo-.,. 49,.
lequIeu an pvioone' ooipoia'o VI p'f
vate. to refrain from certain practices
forbidden in the interest Of public policy,
Tbere was m valid obiection i'm law
-, 40 ,,,,,li, noI;ov J,s,;o.
anu e'e'! ro" :" pu''.. p'ne' .'N'
Day continued why he corporation
which profted by the transaction and
could only act through its agents and
opscars abo,,d he held punishable by fine.
T,,.,:-1, r., s-.s-..l .... .h.-. w.. No
'ust'oe Day asse''ou "-.. .-,S-o . ~
question OF the power OF congress 70
regulate interstate commerce. to prevent
fayoritism and TO secure equal rights TO
m ..,l IN ;nt.rstata trade n world
%" e"su =" ,'S =. .o,5 ,h..
ne oisunc' s,eP oaeh "a'u W "ou 'na'
Congress could not controi tnoee VINO
were conducting this interstate commerce
hv boIding them respopsible for the in |
-, "a -, 900, ~ the q aoants m whom
."' a"u - - go A.. -. 4.
they had oeieRaVeo inc Po"e' !" ao' III
The promises.
In another case against the New York |
ror,r,Iwhich the co,, IT belox had o,Iashed
o'''ai IN uNii ~. ~" - -, r.h;ch ~.
'ecaise the JOINT ra'e uPo" wiz" ne
road had paid rebates to the Brooklyn
Cooperage Company on shipments of bar. |
rel staves from Popular Bluff, Ia, had |
cen tled hy another rsad. the Judgment !
Of the lower court was reversed