The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-08-06
WHO PAYS $2a,Oo0,00O FINE?
UNCLE SAM WILL LOOK To THE
PARENT OIL COMPANY.
n Holds Ths 40 the standard Of indiana IL
q Subsidiary Conccrn tho standard Of
New Jersey 10 the Responsible Party
-sso,ernment to Continue the Etght.

a Subsidiary Concern the standard Of
New Jersey 10 the Responsible Party
-~s;Overnment 60 Continue the right.
WASHINGTON. Aug. s.-Government on
GERS in Washington express Ethe opinion.
John d. Rockefeller to the contrary not
~withstanding. that the Standard Oil Com
pany Of New Jersey will eventually DO
compelled TO pay the fine Of $40. 10000
the Standard Oil Company Of Indiana.
which was convicted on more than 400
counts of violating the provisions Of the
Elkins an~ti-rebate act.
The plan of campaign that the Standard
will adopt in its efforts TO prevent the en-
foroement Of Judge Landis's order lie not
known here, but it is pointed out that the
defendant may appeal either to the Circuit
Court Of Appeals or to the United States
Supreme Court. Ii can nave the case re-
viewed in the Appellate Court on a writ
Of error or may bring it before the Supreme
Court on constitutional grounds. II tbs
Standard goes into the Supreme Court IL
will not be as a criminal. Under the law
there is no appeal to the Supreme Court In
criminal cases except where capital crimes
are involved.
Section 8 Of the Constitution provides
that the courts shall not impose cruel or
unusual punishment or excessive fines. In
the event that the Standard fails to secure
----. :. A. Tg-.,ss 49, - AM1nala
of the decision Of Judge lands, thus re-
handing the case TO the lower court for
retrial, il is expected to take advantage Of
ton above referred to.
Upon what ground the Standard would
base it's plea that the fine imposed by Judge
lands is excessive has, Of course. not been
disclosed by the attorneys OF that company.
The Constitution does not define the term
Excessive fine." That is a point to be set
tied by the judiciary.
The suggestion has been made tina the
fine of $40, 24O, 900 Is excessive and in fact
confiscatory, for the reason that the defend
ant, the Standard Oil Company of Indiana.
Is capitalized at 81 900 900 and has assets OF
$40, 900 900, representing an investment less
than one-half of the amount which the Court
pr opposed shall be assessed against 1t for
violation of law.
Suppose a small concern with a capital
Of $50, 600 was convicted on charges similar
to those brought against the Standar I'd in
the cases under discussion" said Al officer
Of the Department Of Justice to-day. The
Court could not impose less than 81 900 for
each offence, which would far exceed the
capital stock and resources Of such a COM
pany Would that be confsoatory? A
police Judge will fine q man $40 for vagrancy
when he knows the unfortunate man has
not a cent in the world. The question Of
confiscation, to my mind, is not involved
and the Standard will not fight the battle
on that ground"
1t is the purpose of the Government, IL
possible, TO fix the responsibility for the
payment Of the fine imposed upon the
Standard Oil Company Of Indiana on the
Standard of New Jersey. 1t will be alleged
that the Standard Of Indiana is a subsidiary
concern and that the Standard Of New Jer-
sey is the responsible party. The contsn-
ton that the fine is excessive when applied
to the parent corporation it is believed here
will not be sustained by the Court.
During the trial Of the rebate cases the
court showed plainly that it regarded the
Standard Oil Company Of New Jersey az the
real defendant. and especially 90 when 1t
summoned as witnesses Mr.. Rockefeller
and other officers of thsE Eastern corporation.
The same question is at issue in the St.
Louis cases, where the Standard has been
indicted in the Federal Courts under the
terms Of the Sherman anti trust act.
The Government intends to continue the
fight against the Standard Oil Company
with great determination. The Circuit
Court Of Appeals will meet in October and
the Standard rebate cases will doubtless be
set for an early hearing.