Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1907-05-31
The Other Side.

1t TOOK chicago Jury ABOUT TWO hours
to bring in verdict of guilty against the
Standard Oil Company, charged with
having sent oil from Whiting, Ind, to
East St. Louis at six cents a hundred,
the legal rate being eighteen. There
was one indictment, but many counts
/ ,463. For each offence, otherwise
called count, fine must be imposed.
When sentence has been pronounced THE
company may find $50, 10000 added to
its list of contingent liabilities. There is
a large margin, however, between maxi
mum and minimum, 81 ,463, 900 being the
lowest figure at which the trial judge
can mulct the corporation. His honor
specifically charged that the jury must
find intent on the part of the defendant
to violate the law.
Naturally the verdict was hailed as a
signal victory for the people. Culpabili-
ty, not to say criminality, is assumed as
matter of course, when the defendant
happens to be great corporation, which
is held to be synonymous with a grind
ing monopoly. Still, the fact remains
that law is not presumed to differentiate,
that it is protective as well as punitive,
| that it is defensive as well as offensive
Also. the fact remains that injustice can
beidone to none without peril to all, rich
and poor alike being in the same boat.
And there are facts in the case against
the Standard Oil Company account of
which can well be taken.
There is railroad competition between
the points alluded to above. The Chica.
go and Alton asked for part of the Stand
ard Oil business, offering transportation
at prevailing rates, six cents hundred.
The offer was accepted and the business
| tui1 ha
| Chicago and Alton was a reorganized
road and that its predecessor had pub
lished eighteen cents a hundred as its oil
rate. 1t also appears that this rate had
gone into desuetude, being superseded in
everything but the matter of publication,
which little legal formality had been
overlooked. Armed with this technical
ity, the government invoked the pains
and penalties of law.
Statutes have been described as com.
mon sense crystallized. The defendant
diverted to the Chicago and Alton part
of the patronage two other roads en-.
ioyed. AS no other manufacturer ships
oil between the points, there could, OF
course, be no effort to grind a competi
tor. And as neither more nor less was
puid to one line than to each of the two
others, it was clear case of share and
share alike as far as the carrying cor.
porations were concerned. So, nothing
can be clearer than that there was nc
motive for violating law, the one thing
clear being the absence of Inducement
Nor, finally, could any harm come to the
consumer, the company's rule being to
make the selling price plus the freight.
For what. therefore, is the company
to be fined? Certainly not for restrain.
ing trade, because there was no compe.
tition. Certainly not for aiding and
abetting railroad monopoly, because il
distributed its patronage. Certainly not
for conspiring and plotting to rob the
consumer. because the aforesaid distri
button cost him nothing. AZ a matter
of fact. damage was done to literally no
body, neither public nor private interests
being either injured or menaced. The
head and front Of the company's offend
ing is that it did not pay rate not only
obsolete, but ridiculous. 1t only remains
to be added than it is not more ridicu
lous than the law which, in such circum
stances, is carried to enforcement. Al
to the government lawyers, they wer,
barking up the wrong tree.-BrooklyI
Daily Eagle.