The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-11-14
Great Fines Under the Interstate
Commerce. Laws.

Great Fines Under the Interstate
Commerce. Laws.
10 is a mistake TO suppose, as has been
assumed in some newspapers, that the
Santa Fe Railroad case in which the de-
PENDANT has just been fined S33O,OOO for
granting rebates in violation OF the act
OF Congress commonly known as the
Elkins law involves the same questions
a. those which were considered and
passed upon by Judge lands last sum-
mer,~ resulting in the imposition Of a fine
Of $40, 24O, 900 against the Standard Oil
Company Of Indiana.
In the Standard Oil case the defendant
was prosecuted for having received a
rebate, concession or discrimination in
respect TO the transportation of oil from
Z station called Chappell, in Illinois, a
short distance from Chicago, to ST. Louis,
in the State of Missouri. In the Santa
Fe case the defendant railroad company
was charged with having granted a
rebate, concession or discrimination in
respect TO the transportation Of freight
from q point in Arizona TO a point in Cali
fOrnia. In the first case the sh Tper was
the accused party. in the second case
the transportation company. The stat
ute contemplates the punishment not only
Of the party who obtains a discrimination
in his behalf in regard TO the charges for
carrying his goods but also that of the
common ,arrier engaged in interstate
commerce which grants such favor to
the shipper.
Stated as simply as possible, the charge
in the indictment against the Standard
OIL Company N Indiana in the case tried
before nudge Lands was that the defend
ant obtained the transportation of its
property by various railroad companies
at rates less than those given in the
public schedules Of such companies.
The rate obtained from the Chicago and
Alton Railroad Company was six cents
a hundredwcight on oil and petroleum
products in, tank cars. The traffic man
agerof the defendant testified that he OBJ
tanned this rate from the chief rate clerk
in the office of the general freight agent
of the Chicago and Alton Railway Com
pany, and that on each occasion when
this rate was furnished 20 it he inquired
OF the rate clerk whether the rate had
been filed as required by the Federal law
and was informed that it had been so
filed. This evidence was offered TO show
that the defendant had been misled by
the representative Of the railroad COM
pany into the belief that the six cent rate
had been filed with the Interstate Com
merce Commission, and of course it,
tended to show that the defendant had
acted innocentiy upon the assurance that
the rate had been filed although it had
not been filed in fact The verdict
against the defendant indicated that the
jury did not believe the testimony Of the
traffic manager in this respect, and it is
equally manifest that Judge lands did
not believe il. as appears from this remark
which he made in ~pronOuncing sentence:
"A jury is not required to accept an obvi-
ously improbable thing as true merely
because in a lawsuit a witness may tes-
tify to its having happened"
In the Illinois case against the Standard
Oil Company of Indiana the indictment
contained 1903 counts, each count relat-
ing TO the rebate upon the movement Of
a single car of oil. Upon the trial Judge
lands withdrew AL counts from the
consideration Of the jury and the de-
PENDANT was convicted on I,462 counts.
In fixing the fine of $40, 10000 the Judge
acted on the assumption that the defend,
ant named in the indictment was not the
real defendant in the case and he assessed
the amount of the fine upon this assump-
ton, saying: -The nominal defendant is
the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, a
million dollar corporation. The Stand
ard Oil Company of New Jersey, whose
capital is one hundred millions Of dollars,
Is the real defendant He therefore
declared that inasmuch a the larger
corporation controlled the smaller cor
poration which it had absorbed, and not
withstanding the fact that the crime had
been committed in the name of the
smaller corporation, the law would con-
slider the larger corporation to be the real
offender in ascertaining the punishment
which ought properly to be imposed.
The Santa Fe case was tried at Los
Angeles before Judge OLIN WELLBoRN,
the District Judge Of the United States
for tho Southern District Of California.
\ Tho defendant was convicted on sixty
Ar counts OF an indictment which
charged tho granting of rebates by the
abroad company in amounts ranging
| rom rs cents up to SIS. The defence
I ,aa that these sums were allowed and
il id TO the shippers mot by way Of rebate
,l discrimination but In settlement Of
qN