Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-09-12
PETITION FOR A
REHEARiNG is ANSWERED AND
ATTORNEY GENER LIS FORCE
is CRITICISED.
COMPANY FINED ON
ANOTHER'S WEALTH
ANSWER SAYS SUM WAS BASED
ON PARENT BRANCH'S ASi-i
TO pAY-Too MANY COUNTS TO
INDICTMENT.

chicago, Sept. 10. = Counsel Tor
+be standard Oil company of Indiana
in an answer filed today to the pelf
ton of the government attorneys ~
a rehearing of the appeal from 'uuse
Lands Judgment lining the GoLipaa?
s29,24O,OOO for violations OF tne AM.
rebate laws, uphold the decision VI
Judges Grosscup, Baker ana seaman ~
in the United States circuit court u
appeals, reversing the judgment anu
lifting the burden OF the enormous
fine. as good law amply Justiled oy
the record in the case. Point by polnl'
the answer takes UP the arguments III
the petition for rehearlns, "hlch SCI
forth the alleged errors ana assells
that the suggestion of the government
counsel that the rehearing be granted
IN order to certify the question 10 the
federal supreme court IS not a proper
one because there was no division Oh
opinion among the judges OF the re-
viewing court.
In the petition for rehearing the re-
viewing judges are charged with as
Stunning that Judge Lands attempted
to try and punish the Standard on
company of New Jersey In the origin
al proceedings, which were against
the Standard Oil company of Indiana.
On this point the answer declares 1t
70 he a matter of no consequences
whether the trial court referred TO
the New Jersey company Or the lndl-
ana company as the virgin oiiend-
err"
"The real point is says the an
swer, "did the trial court in imposing
the relation between the Stanrard Oh
company of New Jersey and the Stan
dard Oil company of Indiana, and dld
it base it's fine upon the wealth Of the
Standard Oil company of New JERSEY
and its ability to pay instead of upon
the wealth of the Standard Oil COM
pany of Indiana and its ability to
pay"
To detrmine this question the Stan
dard Oil attorneys assert that few
sentences extracted by the govern
ment counsel from the words OF
Judge Lands are not sufficient, and
quote at length from Judge Lands
opinion to show that he referred 10
the New Jersey corporation as the
"real defendant" and to the Indiana
company as the nominal defendant. .
Government Attorneys Criticised.
The conclusion stated by answer is
"that the enormous fine inflicted upon
the defendant was because of the ow-
nership of it's stock by the Standard
Oil company of New Jersey and be-
cause of the financial standing of the
latter corporation is beyond dispute
when the entire opinion of the trial
court is considered"
A large part Of the petition for re-
hearing, the answer asserts, is a re-
iteration Of points which no one dis
putes, and counsel for the defendant
continue their attacks on the petition
by declaring that the government at
torneys are mistaken in their inter
probation of the Armour case cited in
the petition and in suggesting that
the reviewing court is in conflict with
the supreme court.
On the question of knowledge IF
the lawful rate on the part of the de-
PENDANT shipper, which was one of
the points on which great emphasis
was laid in the petition for rehearing,
the answer asserts that the eXcep-
lions of the governments counsel are
based on a misapprehension of opin-
ion and the record of the case. The
exclusion of certain evidence and the
question Of intent are discussed in
detail in the answer in which it 's
asserted that the reviewing court was
justified in the ruling which it made.
Hold Fine Too Big.
On the point of the number of Of
lenses which the petition for rehear-
Ing asserted was obscure in the opin-
lon of the reviewing court the answer
IL, l,o4 No
sci has raised a cloud where there is
none and that the ruling of the court
clearly shows that the numJe Of of.
lenses was regulated by the settle,
ments and payments Of which there
were SO, and not by the carloads
numbering 1,4G2, on which the fine
was predicated.