Armour Packing Co. v. United States

Background

The cases involve large packing companies that contracted with the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway to ship packing-house products from Kansas City, Kansas, to New York for export. The shipper had a contract (June 17, 1905) setting a lower rail portion of the through rate; the carrier filed a higher tariff on August 6, 1905. On August 17 the shipper delivered goods, paid the through rate calculated to give the railroad a lower rail portion than the new filed rate, and was indicted under the Elkins Act for receiving a concession.

Reasoning

The Court addressed three main questions: whether a “device” requires fraud, whether the Elkins Act covers through bills to foreign ports, and where the case may be tried. The majority held that “device” means any plan or means, not necessarily fraudulent; the statute applies to through export shipments; and because actual carriage is essential to the offense, prosecution may be brought in any district through which the transportation was conducted. The Court also explained that private contracts do not override the duty to obey filed published rates.

Real world impact

Shippers and carriers must follow published, filed tariffs even for export shipments billed through. Shippers cannot rely on secret or unpublished contracts to secure lower rates without risking criminal penalties. Federal prosecutions may be brought in districts along a shipment’s route.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the result was unfair to shippers who made reasonable short-term contracts and that venue should be limited to where the goods were delivered or originally handed over. The dissenters urged protecting contract stability and local trial rights.