The Prosecution of the Standard Oil Company.

Prosecution of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey and many of its more than one hundred subsidiary companies under the anti-trust laws of the United States and of several States, instituted by the United States Attorney-General and the Attorneys-General of Ohio, Missouri, Kansas and Texas, was a noteworthy feature of the year 1907. Under the Elkins law, the Standard Oil corporations were indicted in several different cases, on an aggregate of 8,300 counts for accepting rebates from railroads. The penalty on conviction of each count is a fine of from $1,000 to $20,000. Most of these cases were pending at the close of the year, but the indictment of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, which was tried before Judge Kenesaw M. Landis in the United States District Court at Chicago, resulted in a conviction on 1,462 counts and the imposition of the maximum fine of $29,240,000. The fine is the largest ever assessed against any individual or any corporation in the history of American criminal jurisprudence. The charge against the Standard corporation was accepting a secret rate of 6 cents a barrel on shipments from Whiting, Ind., to St. Louis, the legal and published tariff rate being 18 cents. In imposing the fine Judge Landis delivered a long opinion on August 3, in which the methods and practices of the Standard Oil Company were mercilessly discussed. Judge Landis said in his opinion: "To the extent that the Standard Oil Company has not paid what the law requires that it should pay, the shippers of other kinds of property have had to bear the burden. To the rate which it would be fair for the railroad to charge for the transportation of products of the farm and factory has been added what the Standard Oil Company did not pay for the transportation of its property. And herein lies not the least vicious element of such a system. In addition to this is the question of common honesty among men which ought not to be altogether ignored in business even in this day. The conception and execution of such a commercial policy necessarily involves the contamination of subordinate officers or employees, even looking to the time when testimony will be required for the protection of the revenues of the offender from the exactions of the law for its violation. We might as well look at this situation squarely. The men who thus deliberately violate the law wound society more deeply than does he who counterfeits the coin or steals letters from the mail."

Testimony was being taken at the close of the year in an action for an injunction against the continuance of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey and to annul its charter. This was brought by the United States Government through the AttorneyGeneral. The bill of complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and the defendants named included the Standard of New Jersey and its many subsidiary companies, and these directors individually: John D. Rockefeller. William Rockefeller, Henry M. Flagler, Henry H. Rogers, Oliver H. Payne and John D. Archbold. These men were directors of the Standard Oil Trust formed

in Ohio in 1882. Hearings in New York in September and October before Special Examiner Ferriss disclosed for the first time the list of Standard Oil stockholders and their shares. In August, 1907, the total capitalization of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey was $98,338,300. John D. Rockefeller owned $24,769,200. Oliver H. Payne $4,000,000, Henry M. Flagler $3,050,000, Henry H. Rogers $1,602,000, William Rockefeller $1,170,000, and John D. Archbold $600,000.

The average rate of dividends paid by the Oil Trust under one name or another, but continuously under the same control, from 1882 to 1906, was 24.15 per cent. The total amount paid in dividends during that period was $551,992,904,50. The net earnings or profits of the corporation were shown to have aggregated over $800,000,000 from 1882 to 1906. In the year 1906 the net earnings were $83,122,251, more than 84 per cent. on the capitalization. The gross assets at the end of 1906 were $371,664,531.

In 1900 the dividends paid out aggregated $46,691,474, and in 1901 the amount was $46,775,390. In 1906 the dividends were $39,335,320. A computation based on John D. Rockefeller's holdings, which varied slightly from year to year, showed that in the period 1882-1906 he received in dividends on his oil stock $143,499,954. More than one-half of the entire $98,338,300 stock of the Standard Oil Company was owned by thirty-one shareholders.

Suits were pending at the close of the year to oust the Standard and its subsidiary companies from the States of Ohio, Kansas and Missouri under the anti-trust laws. Texas had previously ordered all known branches of the oil monopoly not to do business In the State, and early in the year secured a conviction with a heavy fine against the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. On November 6 Attorney-General Davidson, of Texas, brought action against eleven subsidiary companies of the Standard, demanding $75,900,000 in penalties for alleged violations of the State's anti-trust laws. Receivers for the eleven companies were asked for also. An injunction was granted restraining the defendant companies from removing any of their property from the State,

In May the Federal Bureau of Corporations published a report on the "Position of the Standard Oil Company in the Petroleum Industry.' "" which showed that the Standard controls over 85 per cent. of the refining and sale of oil in the United States. A striking feature of the report was the defiance of the Interstate Commerce Act by the Standard's Pipe Lines, which were shown to be one of the main supports of the monopoly's power.

In August the same Bureau published a report on "Prices and Profits in the Oil Business," This showed a great increase in recent years in the margin between the price of crude oil and the prices of illuminating oil and other products. It showed enormous variance in prices charged in competitive and non-competitive localities, and that the oil shipped to foreign countries by the Standard was sold there at much lower prices than to the American consumer.

Regulation of Railroad Rates.

THE following are the clauses of the act approved June 29, 1906, to amend the act of 1887 and other acts amendatory thereof entitled An Act to Regulate Commerce, which specifically relate to the construction of switches, filing of schedules of rates and fares, prohibition of discriminations and rebates and hearing of complaints and remedial action thereon by the Interstate Commerce Commission. FURNISHING SWITCHES AND TRANSPORTATION.

Any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, upon application of any lateral, branch line of railroad, or of any shipper tendering interstate traffic for transportation, shall construct, maintain, and operate upon reasonable terms a switch connection with any such lateral, branch line of railroad, or private side track which may be constructed to connect with its railroad, where such connection is reasonably practicable and can be put in with safety and will furnish sufficient business to justify the construction and maintenance of the same, and shall furnish cars for the movement of such traffic to the best of its ability, without discrimination in favor of or against any such shipper. FILING OF SCHEDULES OF RATES.

Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall file with the commission created by this act and print and keep open to public inspection schedules showing all the rates, fares and charges for transportation between different points on its own route and between points on its own route and points on the route of any carrier by railroad, by pipe line, or by water when a through route and joint rate have been established. If no joint rate over the through route has been estab lished, the several carriers in such through route shall file, print and keep open to public inspection as aforesaid, the separately established rates, fares and charges applied to the through transportation. The schedules printed as aforesaid by any such common carrier shall plainly state the places between which property and passengers will be carried, and shall contain the classification of freight in force, and shall also state separately all terminal charges, storage charges, icing charges, and all other charges which the commission may require, all privileges or facilities granted or allowed, and any rules or regulations which in anywise change, affect, or determine any part of the aggregate of such aforesaid rates, fares and charges, or the value of the service rendered to the passenger, shipper, or consignee.

DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDEN.

No carrier, unless otherwise provided by this act, shall engage or participate in the transportation of passengers or property, as defined in this act, unless the rates, fares, and charges upon which the same are transported by said carrier have been filed and published in accordance with the provisions of this act; nor shall any carrier charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such transportation of passengers or property, or for any service in connection therewith, between the points named in such tariffs than the rates, fares, and charges which are specified in the tariff filed and in effect at the time; nor shall any carrier refund or remit in any manner or by any device any portion of the rates, fares, and charges so specified, nor extend to any shipper or person any privileges or facilities in the transportation of passengers or property, except such as are specified in such tarifts

REBATES.

Any person, corporation, or company who shall deliver property for interstate transportation to any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, or for whom as consignor or consignee, any such carrier shall transport property from one State, Territory, or the District of Columbia to any other State, Territory, or the District of Columbia or foreign country, who shall knowingly by employé, agent, officer, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, by or through any means or device whatsoever, receive or accept from such common carrier any sum of money or any other valuable consideration as a rebate or offset against the regular charges for transportation of such property, as fixed by the schedules of rate provided for in this act, shall in addition to any penalty provided by this act forfeit to the United States a sum of money three times the amount of money so received or accepted, and three times the value of any other consideration so received or accepted, to be ascertained by the trial court; and the Attorney-General of the United States is authorized and directed, whenever he has reasonable grounds to believe that any such person, corporation, or company has knowingly received or accepted from any such common carrier any sum of money or other valuable consideration as a rebate or offset as aforesaid, to institute in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, a civil action, to collect the said sum or sums so forfeited as aforesaid; and in the trial of said action all such rebates or other considerations so received or accepted for a period of six years prior to the commencement of the action, may be included therein, and the amount recovered shall be three times the total amount of money, or three times the total value of such consideration, so received or accepted, or both, as the case may be.

HEARING OF COMPLAINTS,

The commission is authorized and empowered, and it shall be its duty, whenever, after full hearing upon a complaint made as provided in section thirteen of this act, or upon complaint of any common carrier, it shall be of the opinion that any of the rates, or charges whatsoever, demanded, charged, or collected by any common carrier or carriers, subject to the provisions of this act, for the transportation of persons or property as defined in the first section of this act, or that any regulations or practices whatsoever of such carrier or carriers affecting such rates, are unjust and unreasonable, or unjustly discriminatory, or unduly preferential or prejudicial, or otherwise in violation of any of the provisions of this act, to determine and prescribe what will be the just and reasonable rate or rates, charge or charges, to be thereafter observed in such case as the maximum to be charged; and what regulation or practice in respect to such transportation is just, fair, and reasonable to be thereafter followed; and to make an order that the carrier shall cease and desist from such violation, to the extent to which the commission find the same to exist, and shall not thereafter publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for such transportation in excess of the maximum rate or charge so prescribed. All shall conform to the regulation or pratice so prescribed

ESTABLISHMENT OF ROUTES AND RATES

The commission may also, after hearing on a complaint, establish through routes and joint rates as the maximum to be charged, and prescribe the division of such rates as hereinbefore provided, and the terms and conditions under which such through routes shall be operated, when that may be necessary to give effect to any provision of this act, and the carriers complained of have refused or neglected to voluntarily establish such through routes and joint rates, provided no reasonable or satisfactory through route exists, and this provision shall apply when one of the connecting carriers is a water line.

State Legislation Regulating Railroad Rates.

The year 1907 was prolific in enactments by State Legislatures requiring railroads to make effective lower interstate passenger rates. In each instance this legislation was contested, and a number of suits are now pending in lower courts. These will be expedited for the purpose of securing an early opinion from the United States Supreme Court, but this is not expected until some time in the present year. Notable disputes arose in North Carolina and Alabama, where the new laws are now being operated under an agreement. An arrangeinent was reached in Virginia without litigation. Legislation looking to lower passenger rates was enacted in Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Florida and New York. Governor Hughes vetoed the 2-cent fare bill passed by the New York Legislature. Two courts in Pennsylvania pronounced the 2-cent law of that State unconstitutional. The passenger rates effective in the various States on December 1 follow, all being applicable to interstate traffic: Alabama, 2 cents; Arkansas, 2 cents; Georgia. 2 cents on the Atlanta and West Point Railway, 2 cents on the Atlantic Coast Line and on the Georgia Railway; 2 cents on the Central of Georgia, Southern Railway, Seaboard Air Line, Georgia Southern and Florida. and on the Alabama Great Southern, and 3 cents on all other railroads. Illinois. 2 cents; Indiana, 2 cents; Iowa, 2 cents. Maryland roads charging more than 2 cents shall issue mileage books at 2 cents per mile. Michigan, 2 cents on the Lower Peninsula, 3 cents on the Upper Peninsula; Minnesota, 2 cents; Mississippi, 2 cents; Missouri, 2 cents: Nebraska, 2 cents; New York, 3 cents (except on the New York Central, which charges 2 cents), 2-cent mileage books; North Carolina, 24 cents; North Dakota, 21% cents, and 2-cent mileage books; Ohio, 2 cents; Pennsylvania, 2 cents; South Dakota, 2 cents; Virginia, 2 cents on trunk lines, all other roads 2% to 3% cents; West Virginia, 2 cents; Wisconsin, 2 cents. The New York, New Haven and Hartford voluntarily reduced its rates to 2 cents per mile. On July 1, 1907, all the Hill lines began issuing 3,000-mile mileage books at 2 cents per mile. These were all the States in which laws were enacted regulating interstate passenger rates. In a number of States the rates were accepted by the railroads, but in Alabama, North Carolina, Nebraska, Virginia and Mississippi litigation is pending.

Judge Vandeventer, of the United States Circuit Court, on August 1, 1907, issued an injunction restraining the State of Arkansas from declaring forfeited the property of the Rock Island Railroad in that State and collecting a fine of $1,000 per day for violations of the State statutes. This decision was based on the ground that, as the Rock Island is an Iowa corporation, it had a right to be heard in a United States Court.

The Pennsylvania 2-cent fare law was pronounced unconstitutional by two courts on the ground that it is virtually confiscatory.

CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION IN NORTH CAROLINA.

The 24-cent rate act in North Carolina aroused considerable friction between the Federal and State authorities, and a serious clash was threatened. The situation was so acute at one time that President Roosevelt and Attorney-General Bonaparte sent Edward T. Sanford, an assistant in the Department of Justice, to North Carolina, where he conferred with both factions, counselled a compromise, and succeeded in bringing about an arrangement of differences.

Before the North Carolina law went into effect the Southern Railroad obtained an injunction from Judge Pritchard, of the United States Circuit Court, restraining the State Railroad Commission and others from enforcing the act. It was provided in the order, at the suggestion of the railroad company, that each person who purchased a ticket should be given a coupon entitling the holder to recover the difference between 2 cents a mile and the rate charged.

Governor Glenn and other parties declared this to be a defiance of the State, and proceeded to arrest ticket agents of the Southern at Asheville and Raleigh. The agents at Asheville were released on a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Pritchard, Those at Raleigh were assessed a nominal fine, and the railroad company was fined $30,000. The agents paid their fine. An appeal was taken from the $30,000 fine to the State Supreme Court. The case has been argued and submitted, but a decision not yet rendered.

After the proceedings at Asheville, when it became apparent that the railroad would be involved in an ugly controversy with the State, the company yielded temporarily the protection of the United States Court and asked Judge Pritchard to modify his order so as to make the 24-cent rate effective pending proceedings in his court. This was done under an agreement with Governor Glenn and the State Railroad Commission. The agreement was put into effect August S. It is provided that the State shall appeal from Judge Pritchard's decree releasing the Asheville agents on a writ of habeas corpus. Also that an appeal be taken in the Raleigh case. Both cases will be advanced in the United States Supreme Court. No more indictments will be found or prosecutions brought until the cases are determined.

Judge Pritchard appointed ex-Judge Walter P. Montgomery master to take testimony in the cases. The railroad has presented its side, but the case for the State is still open, delay having been requested.

LEGISLATION IN NORTH CAROLINA.

The passenger traffic situation also became acute in Alabama, through the misunderstanding of a country lawyer, and threats were made that the licenses of certain trunk lines would be revoked by Governor Comer. The Alabama Legislature passed a law reducing passenger rates to 24 cents per mile and providing a maximum freight rate on 110 specific commodities. Also an act that any railroad undertaking to transfer a suit from a State to a Federal Court should forfeit its charter. Judge Jones issued an injunction against the passenger and freight laws.

An old statute of the State provides that any foreign corporation, not specifying railroads, seeking to transfer a suit shall have its license revoked. The enforcement of this act was not enjoined by Judge Jones. A local attorney presented a motion to have a case not arising under any of the new legislation transferred to a United States Court, The

Secretary of State immediately revoked the license of the Southern Railroad to do business in the State. The company yielded, and promised to put the 2-cent rate into effect pending a decision of the Courts. The Atlantic Coast Line and other roads at first refused to join in this agreement and continued the old rates. They did not seek to transfer suits, and their licenses could not be revoked. On December 3 the Atlantic Coast Line officials. after a long conference with Governor Comer, agreed to stop further litigation and accept the new State laws on the same conditions which the Southern and other roads came under. The Mobile and Ohio, and Alabama and Great Southern made an agreement which became effective December 1, 1907, to charge a passenger rate of 2% cents per mile.

In Virginia, after an investigation by the Corporations Commission, an order was issued that certain main line railroads in the State should not charge more than 2 cents per mile. Less important lines and branch roads were permitted to charge graded rates up to 3% cents per mile.

The Southern Railroad obtained an injunction against the Corporations Commission on the ground that its action was unconstitutional, confiscatory, and that it had no jurisdiction. After the North Carolina troubles were settled, the Southern made an agreement to observe the order issued by the Virginia Corporations Commission, pending proceedings in the Courts. No testimony has yet been taken in this case.

Prosecution of Trusts by the United States.

Under the provisions of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, the United States Government brought six important actions against corporations alleged to be combinations in restraint of trade during the year 1907. Only two of these have been decided, and in each a conviction was secured. The remainder of the cases are pending. The principal actions and their status on December 1 were as follows:

March 12-Indictment returned against the American Seating Company et al, in the District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, charged with being a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of school furniture. On April 1 all defendant corporations except one. the E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Company, entered pleas of guilty and fines aggregating $43,000 were imposed on May 20.

April 4-Indictment returned against the Santa Rita Mining Company and the Santa Rita Store Company in the District of New Mexico, charging them with being a combination in restraint of trade. Fine of $1,000 imposed.

June 12 Bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Reading Company et al, to dissolve a combination among the anthracite coal carrying roads and others.

July 1-Indictment returned in the District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania against the National Umbrella Frame Company et al, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of umbrella material.

July 10-Bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court of the Southern District of New York against the American Tobacco Company and others, charging them with maintaining a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of tobacco.

July 30-Bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court for the District of Delaware against E. . Du Pont, de Nemours & Co. and others, in which it is alleged they are maintaining combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture of gunpowder and other high explosives.

a

Prosecutions Under the Anti-Rebate Law.

Thirty-four actions were brought during the year 1907 under the provisions of the Elkins act, forbidding the giving or acceptance of rebates. Only three of these were decided, and in all the Government secured convictions. Heavy fines were imposed. The actions and their status on December 1, 1907, were as follows:

United States vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company (Southern District of New York). May 7, 1907, indictment returned charging a violation of the Elkins act in giving and granting rebates on coffee. May 13, 1907, plea of not guilty with leave to withdraw within one week. May 20, 1907, plea of not guilty withdrawn and plea of guilty to first and second counts of indictment. Fined $20,000. United States vs. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company (Southern District of New York). May 7, 1907. indictment returned charging a violation of the Elkins act in giving and granting rebates on coffee. May 16, 1907, plea of guilty on first and third counts of indictment. Fined $20,000.

United States vs. New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company (Southern District of New York). May 7, 1907, indictment returned charging a violation of the Elkins act in giving and granting rebates on coffee. May 13, 1907, plea of not guilty with leave to withdraw. Pending.

United States vs. Western Transit Company (Southern District of New York). May 1. 1907, indictment returned charging a violation of the Elkins act in giving and granting rebates on sugar. June 6, 1907. plea of guilty. Fined $10,000.

United States vs. W. H. Bennett (District Court of Northern Ohio). June 7. 1907, indictment returned under the Elkins act for offering, granting, and giving rebates. Pending.

United States vs. Central Vermont Railway Company (Southern District of New York). June 18, 1907, indictment returned under the Elkins act for offering, granting, and giving rebates. June 24, 1907. plea of not guilty with leave to withdraw. Pending.

United States vs. Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway Company (Circult Court of Northern Illinois). June 19, 1907, petition filed to enjoin said company from deviating from its published tariffs. Pending.

United States vs. United States Express Company et al (Circuit Court of Northern Illinois). July 2, 1907, petitions filed under Section 2 of the Elkins act to lest law with

reference to the issuance of franks by said companies. July 2, 1907, stipulations and answers filed. Pending.

United States vs. Pacific Mail Steamship Company (District Court of Northern California). September 28, 1907, indictment returned under the Interstate Commerce Law (eight counts) charging the shipping of matting at less than filed tariff from Kobe through San Francisco to points in the East. Case pending.

United States vs. Pacific Mail Steamship Company (District Court of Northern Callfornia). September 28, 1907, indictment returned under the Interstate Commerce Law (eight counts) charging the shipping of matting at less than legal tariff from Kobe through San Francisco to points in the East. Case pending.

United States vs. Southern Pacific Company (District Court of Northern California). September 28, 1907, indictment returned under the Interstate Commerce Law (eight counts) charging the forwarding of matting from Kobe to San Francisco at less than its filed tariff. Case pending.

United States vs. Southern Pacific Company (District Court of Northern California). September 28, 1907, indictment returned under the Interstate Commerce Law (fifty counts) charging the forwarding of fifty parcels of matting from Kobe through San Francisco to points in the East at less than filed rate. Case pending.

United States vs. Southern Pacific Company (District Court of Northern California). September 28, 1907, indictment returned under the Interstate Commerce Law (fifty counts) charging the forwarding of fifty parcels of matting from San Francisco to final destinations at less than filed tariff. Case pending. United States vs. Mutual Transit Company. Information filed February 27, 1907, in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York against the Mutual Transit Company for giving rebates in violation of the Elkins act. April 1, 1907, demurrer filed. May 24, 1907, demurrer overruled. Case pending.

United States vs. Mutual Transit Company. Information filed February 27, 1907, in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York against the Mutual Transit Company for giving rebates in violation of the Elkins act. April 1, 1907, demurrer filed. May 24, 1907, demurrer overruled. Case pending.

United States vs. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9, 1907. indictment returned charging a violation of the Elkins act (188 counts) in giving and granting rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9, 1907. indictment returned (forty counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in giving and granting rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company and Pennsylvania Railroad Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9, 1907, indictment returned (188 counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in giving and granting rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company and Pennsylvania Railroad Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9, 1907, indictment returned (40 counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in giving and granting rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9, 1907, indictment returned (188 counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in giving and granting rebates. Case pending. United States vs. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9. 1907. indictment returned (forty counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in giving and granting rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. Vacuum Oil Company (District Court, Western New York). August 9. 1907, indictment returned (188 counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in accepting and receiving rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. Vacuum Oil Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9. 1907. indictment returned (forty counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in accepting and receiving rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. Standard Oil Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9. 1907. indictment returned (189 counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in accepting and receiving rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. Standard Oil Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9, 1907, indictment returned (forty counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in accepting and receiving rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9, 1907, indictment returned (114 counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in giving and granting rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. Standard Oil Company and Vacuum Oil Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9, 1907. indictment returned (fifty-seven counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in accepting and receiving rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. Standard Oil Company (District Court of Western New York), August 9. 1907, indictment returned (114 counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in accepting and receiving rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. Vacuum Oil Company (District Court of Western New York). August 9. 1907, indictment returned (114 counts) charging a violation of the Elkins act in accepting and receiving rebates. Case pending.

United States vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (District Court of Southern California). January 9, 1907. Indictment returned charging a violation of the Elkins act in granting and giving rebates. April 17. 1907, demurrer filed. April 26, 1907, demurrer overruled. September 30, 1907, trial; verdict of guilty on all counts.

United States vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (District Court of Southern California). January 9, 1907, indictment returned charging a violation of the Elkins act in granting and giving rebates. April 17, 1907, demurrer filed. April 26, 1907, demurrer overruled. Case pending.