New-York tribune., 1907-08-04

a commodity rate on oil of So cents a huild'eN
pounds from Chicago and Dolton Junction IL %
East St. Louis. However. this amendment 40, 70
D-os not filed with the Interstate Commerce Coni-
Tniss,on until March. f@. year after the eN-
piratior of the period covered by the lndlc'tletC
and nearly three years after its issue IN VIZ" -.
go ,acts IN. Eastern Illinois situation cannot
serve the purpose In this case Of eXcusing or %
any extent palliatns the defendants acceptance u
the unlawful Chicago & Alton scent rate
SI-MMOSING OF OFFICIALS.
TO- .bo Guidance Of the court in determining the
ncnartv 10 be fixed I'm this case. the court re
Guested counsel furnish information as 70 "ld',
If any corporation held the stock Of the deieholi'
Standard oil Company OF Indiana What ~ tile o.
standing capital stock Of such holding company
was and what its net earnings and dlVldendS "tte
for the three years covered by the lndlctnellt-
This information which the court deemed II hl9
duty to obtain in order that ne might S'oNlStrS @
sxsrciso the discretion required by law in hXlns
the nunishment the defendants counsel. after Ce-
liberation. refused TO give
The court therefore. caused subpTnas Z" o,
issued requiring the presence here OF the prnc'p4l
officers Of the Standard on company oi lIi'i.i'A ~
and of the standard Oil Company Of New jersey
Defendants counsel thereupon applied TO the court
to recall these subpuenaS. representing udt S'.
principal officers not in possession o1 tlle III
formation sought 10y the court. and suggested tnd'
the subprnas be limited certain person. VINO
II was stated. had the information, and whose
name counsel offered 10 give to the court In r.
sponse to the courts inquiry, however as 10
whether such person would testify or refuse 10
answer. should this course be adopted. the stat stat
nlent was made that he might decline I" answer
on the advice of counsel Therefore, beliS "l nc
opinion that II there WAS TO be such reIuSdi ~
testify II ought not TO come from subordinate
selected by the defendant for that purpose. u,e
court declined recall the SubpCffaS ttC'iH Hl'7'S
they were duly served.
on the examination of the president and secretary
of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. II
appeared that a very large proportion Of the STOCK
OF the defendant Standard oil Company OF Indiana
was held by individuals for the stockholders oi the
Standard Oil Company or New jersey: tIldt ule
outstanding capital stock of the standard OIL com
pany OF New Jersey WAS approximately Slott"o".
that the annual dividends Of that company during
tho three wears covered by the indictment We're
approximately per cent, and that its net earnings
for the period mentioned were approximately $-'V'-
OIn0oo 1t also appeared from certified copy OF
resolution Of the stockholders OF the Standard OH
Company of Indiana increasing its capital stock
that its 81 100000 capital all but four 500 shares
owned by what is called the standard OH
Trust"
LAW COVERING HEARING.
The enforced attendance and testimony of these
witnesses resisted as extra-judical and unwar-
rantcd The rule governing the proceeding. as
found in Bishops New Criminal Law, Vol. I. Sec
tions 94S and $50 is as follows:
THE entire transaction in which crime
committed may embrace more of wckedness than
the indictment charges: or there may be other cir
cumstances of aggravation, on the one hand. or Of
mitigation on the other. Therefore If the law
has given the court IA discretion as 10 punishment.
I'm pronouncing sentence. 1t will look into any evil
dence proper to influence iudicious magistrate To
make 1t heavier or lighter. Or this sort %
evidence may be delivered to the jury the trial
II with II is the assessment of the punishment.
But we authority for the proposition that in
such case the aggravating matter must not be OF
a crime separate from the one charged in the in
dictment-a rule. perhaps. not applicable where
the court determines after verdict. the punish
ment . This evidence. thus addressed to the
discretion of the judge. need not be attended by
the formalities required the main issues be
fore the jury. The court will now. II IL
reason to order otherwise. listen to parte afi-
davits. And even hearsay evidence inadmissible
general principles. has under special circum-
stances been suffered this issue. \ witness
may be Compelled by subpoena TO be present
From the defendants formal refusal to furnish
the court with this Information subsequently
brought out the hearing, the court quotes the
following language Of counsel:
IT will not be understood saying that. upon
the application for Judgment upon the verdict
either party may not considerations which
may be fairly made from the evidence introduced
before the court upon the trial And 1t is proper
for the defendant TO present circumstances which
he could not Introduce I'm evidence upon the trial
in mitigation of the penalty The defendant here
Its rights IN that respect. and. whenever