United States v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 19 October 1964
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 64-L-123.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Malcolm WILLIAMSON, doing business as L & M Trading Company, International Meat & Food Products, Inc., a corporation, and Intercontinental Meat Traders, Inc., a corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

235 F. Supp. 836

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Malcolm WILLIAMSON, doing business as L & M Trading Company, International Meat & Food Products, Inc., a corporation, and Intercontinental Meat Traders, Inc., a corporation, Defendants.

Crim. No. 64-L-123.

United States District Court S. D. Texas, Laredo Division.

October 19, 1964.

Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., and Thomas L. Morrill, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.

W. C. Wright, Laredo, Tex., for defendant Malcolm Williamson.

McDonald, Sanders, Nichols, Wynn & Ginsburg (Stanford Harrell), Fort Worth, Tex., for defendant International Meat & Food Products, Inc.

Hall, Hall & Juarez (Horace C. Hall, III), Laredo, Tex., for defendant Intercontinental Meat Traders, Inc.

CONNALLY, Chief Judge.

The defendant Williamson is charged in a twenty-four count Criminal Information with engaging in the for-hire transportation business by motor vehicle in interstate commerce without first obtaining a certificate or permit of authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission as required by § 303(c) of Title 49 U.S.C.A. Each of the remaining defendants (International and Intercontinental) is charged in twelve counts with aiding and abetting Williamson in said offense, allegedly in violation of § 2 of Title 18 U.S.C.A. Williamson and International have entered pleas of guilty to various counts of the Information. Intercontinental has filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that as a shipper it may not be held guilty as an aider and abettor of the carrier, under § 303(c).

On the coming on of said motion, the Court expressed the view that the broad proposition thus asserted might not be maintained, and that a shipper (or any other person) on proper showing, might well be guilty of aiding, counseling or inducing a carrier to enter into such illegal transportation, and that thus such person might be held under § 2 of Title 18. Counsel were advised that it would be necessary to hear the evidence in the case. Counsel suggested, however, that the evidence was not in dispute, and might be stipulated. Such a stipulation of fact has been filed, and it is agreed that the Motion to Dismiss may be considered as a Motion to Dismiss at the conclusion of the Government case.

Such stipulation reflects substantially the following. Defendant Williamson owned a number of refrigerated trucks which were used to carry food products in interstate commerce between Laredo, Texas and various other points. Intercontinental engaged in the purchase and sale of meat and meat by-products throughout the United States, and employed carriers to transport its meat in interstate commerce. Williamson approached Intercontinental offering to transport its meat in interstate commerce, although he had no authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission for such carriage. With knowledge that Williamson had no such authority, nevertheless Intercontinental employed Williamson to carry certain of its products in interstate commerce, being motivated, apparently, by a want of certificated carriers serving this area. The relationship of these parties was solely that of shipper-carrier, and Intercontinental had no interest or control over Williamson's trucks, nor did it induce or encourage Williamson to ship goods in interstate commerce without authority, unless this patronage of his illegal activity constituted such inducement. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the charges for such transportation paid by Intercontinental were other than the usual and normal tariffs charged for like transportation by duly authorized carriers. No rebates, concessions, or "kickbacks" were involved.

§ 303(c) of Title 49 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"* * * No person shall engage in any for-hire transportation business by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, * * unless there is in force with regard to such person a certificate or a permit issued by the Commission authorizing such transportation * * *."

It will be noted that the section condemns only the conduct of a carrier.

Prohibited conduct by a shipper (or other person) of a related nature is defined in § 322(c) of Title 49. An examination of this section reflects that to constitute a violation by a shipper (who knowingly patronizes an uncertificated carrier), it is necessary that he either: (a) receive some character of rebate or concession, or (b) be guilty of some fraudulent conduct in an attempt to evade the regulations (as by the use of false bills of lading, receipts, bills of sale, etc.). Read together, as they must be as a part of the same chapter of this regulatory act, these sections indicate a congressional intent only to condemn the act of a shipper where the elements set out in § 322(c) are present. Unable to charge the shipper under § 322(c) because of the absence of either rebate or fraud, the Government seeks to circumvent this requirement by charging him as an aider or abettor of the carrier under § 2 of Title 18. If it were the congressional intent to punish the shipper for participation in the same conduct as the carrier, it seems that such provision would have been found in § 303(c).

One of the purposes of the regulation of motor carriers in interstate commerce is the...