East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1906-08-30

tlficatiOn of Commissioner Garfield
and the Indicting Grand Juries.
-, -
For the first time in its long career
the Standard Oil company has been
indicted by a federal grand jury, ex-
claimed the Tribune of Chicago, a
few days ago, when a special grand
jury in that city returned an indict-
ment on 10 counts against the most
widely discussed of all our corpora
tions. Following closely upon this
action comes that of the federal grand
jury for the western district of New
York, which finds true bills on "a
counts against the Standard Oil COM
pany and the Pennsylvania railroad
company for violation of the interstate
commerce law. Both in Chicago and
in New York the charge is the re-
ceiving of rebates.
The Chicago Tribune points out
that the extreme penalty possible un-
der the Elkins act, if Standard Oil is
convicted on all the 10 counts of ac-
cepting rebates from the Lake Shore
railroad will be a fine of $3S0,000,
while the total amount of rebates
alleged to have been received is the
comparatively insignificant sum of
$500. What this case chiefly illus
trates, remarks the New York Journal
of Commerce, is that it is in the power
of the railroads TO put N complete
stop to all such offenses. It adds: "!f
an example is made of the Standard
Oil company, and it is heavily mule
ted in fines, it may have wholesome
effect; but when the new amendments
of the law take effect the more de-
terrent penalty of imprisonment will
become available"
From the public's point of view,
says the New York Evening Post, the
really interesting feature of the COM
ing proceedings will be the definite
test of the Standard Oil company
much celebrated reformation. Says
the Post:
! "Of course. it once took rebates Sc
( its counsel pointed out, but that was
when rebates were no more illega
than terminal or demurrage charges
And since then it has observed the
scrupulous letter of the law. TT says
! so, and it ought to know Besides
Chancellor Day and the Rev. DIR
Robert Stuart Macarthur have made
personal inquiries and found the
Standard Oil to be law-abiding above
other corporations. Yet the indict.
ments specify offenses which are re-
cent. They are embraced between
August, 1903, and February, 1905;
and this period, be it noted, includes
the explicit denials both of the COM
pany itself and of its unofficial de-
tenders"
1t is to be remembered that an in
dictment is not a conviction. remarks
the New York Tribune, which never.
theless sees in the recent indictments
a justification of the Garfield report
Says that paper:
TT can not fairly be assumed. and
we have no wish to assume. that the
/ oil men are guilty. They may be able
1 to show that the transaction in ques.
tion was perfectly lawful. and the
public should await their defense with
an open mind. 1t is scarcely to be
supposed however, that United
States district attorney would take ur
the transaction unless he had good
reason to believe he could show II to
be unlawful. or that a grand jury
would have found the Indictment un-
less it believed that he had made out
prlmd 1acle case.
Apparently, therefore, Mr.. Gar
field was not so reckless IS he was
| said to be- and the correctness of the
Standard Oils business methods was
not so plain to all sane men as its at
torneys would have preferred the
public to believe. Mr.. Garfield may
have been mistaken. The district at
torney and the grand jury may be
mistaken. The district attorney and
the grand jury may be mistaken. But
1t is clear that Mr. Garfield was JUS
titled in criticizing methods which, in
spite of the railroads and the ship
per's public explanations, are now
made the cause of indictments"