66 CCTOBER TERM, 1907. dictment fully meets all legal requirements. United $ta? v. ?immo'?, 96 U.S. 360, 362. And see Connors v. U?/ted Stat?, 158 U.S. 408, 411; Ledbe#er v. United $ta?, 170 U.S. 606, 611. The facts fully warrant the finding of criminal guilt. The packers are conclusively presumed to have intended to do what they did and are bound by the legal consequences of their acts.. New Haven R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerr? Commission, 200 U.S. 361, 396-398. MR. JUS?CE DAY delivered the opinion of the court. These cases are here upon writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. By stipulation there was a single petition for certiorari and the cases in the Circuit Court of Appeals were considered together on the record in the Armour Packing Company ?ase, and, as it is conceded in the brief of the learned counsel for the peti- tioners that the differences in the cases are unsubstantial, the same course may be followed here. Each of the petitioners was convicted in the District Court of the United States, Western District of Mi?ouri, for viola- tion of the so-called Elkins Act of February 19, 1993, chap. 708, 32 Stat. 847, in obtaining from the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company an unlawful concession of 12 cents per 100 pounds from the published and filed rate on ?hat por- tion of the route between the Mississippi River and New York for transportation upon_ a shipment made August 17, 1905, for carriage by rail of ?ertain packing tieuse products from Kansas City, Kansas, to New York for export. 'Upon writs of error from the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Cir- cnit the sentences of conviction were affirmed. 153 Fed. I?ep. 1. to August 6, 1905, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Rail- way Company, with its connecting railroads east of the Miss- issippi River, under joint traffic arrangements, had filed, pub- lished and posted in accordance with the acts of Congress the
�
