The Washington times., 1908-07-22
Judge Lands Penalty De-
clared Unlawful by Ap-
pelate Court.
COURT SEEMED
ABOVE THE LAW
Punishment IEtSnded for CORPORA
ton Not Before Court-New
Trial Ordered.

CHICAGO. July 2-The United States
Circuit Court OF Appeals today reversed
the famous decision OF Judge Kenesaw
II Lands, n which he fined the stand
ard OIL Company Of Indiana y. 9.2f0.O00-
The case is remanded 10 the lever court
Tor a new trial
The decision Of the court. composed Of
Judges Grosscup. Baker and Seaman.
was scathing arraignment OF Judge
lands. IN which It was asked If the
court believed himself above the law
in imposing a fire that would fall on the
shoulders OF the mother corporation
the Standard oil Company OF -Sew Jer-
sey-When The Indiana corporation aIone
unoer the taw could be held responsible
Il seemed TO be the irony Of fate that
Judge GrosscUp should have written he
decision Of the upper court he not only
wrote the decision, but read the decision
10 the waiting thrOng IN the court room
Judge GrOsscup and Judge Lands
have not been the best Of friends for
some time. as q result OF certain state
ments made months ago BY Judge Ian
| els concerning Federal judges who talk
publicly on matters which might come
under their judicial attention.
Court Room Crowded
When the three judges took their
! seats on the bench the court room was
/ crowded 10 the doors John : Miller.
| Rockefeller-s famous S58seJ0 lawyer. was
| present 10 represent the OF trust He
was accompanied By Attorney 1Ioritz
| ROsenthsl and several other Standard
/ oil lawyer District Attorney Edwin
Sims appeared for the Government
| All that occurred il ceurt was the
1 reading OF the very last paragraph OF
| tire decision. Judge GrosscUp read il,
( as follows
( The judgment Of the district court
I IS reversed and the case remau6ed.
/ with Instructions to grant q new trial.
cad p-oeeed further IL accordance with
= f.is cpi2toE-"
+. Tr Sas-aU ann court adjourneI.
/ lnsnell tie. .Dlstrtct attorney Sims held
/ & conference with James wIkerson and
/ decided . rush the cas-. to another trial
I ir the fail
VIII Hasten Retrial
I'VE cannot appeal the case said
/ Ny Sims but after q careful reading
! Of the decision we fnd we can get a
/ nov trial at once. That is what we viii
10"
1
/ fault with Judge Lands method Of
/ fning the trust. but criticised him for
| his manner Of deciding the number Of
! counts .oiC in the Indictment upon which
/ q trial shs=.Id be had. The Government
| contendad lat each count was an Of
| fense- The upper court held differently
| on thal-
| The arraignment of Judge Lands be-
/ Sins with the taking up Of that matter.
| The court said:
THE number Of offenses IN the pres
| ent case should have been ascertained
in accordance with these principles THE
| transaction OF granting a rebate as
transaction must be entirely consum-
mated before It IS an Offense.I
The measure adopted BY the trial
I court was wholly arbitrary-had no
! hasis in airy intention or fixed rule dis
J coverable in the statute. And no other
! way Of measuring the number Of Of
fenses seems 70 have been given a
| thought either by the Government or
by the trial court"
The court then goes into the hnInz OF
the trust by Judge Lands. In this
l came the words which are taken as 2.
direct criticism Of one Of the most re-
TnarkabIe decisions ever rendered by q
district Judge
This brings US, then. TO the last cues
/ ton" the decision reads Did the
court. in the fine imposed, abuse its dis
cretion2
Briefly stated, the reason OF the
trial court for imposing this SEN
itence was because after conviction
and before sentence. It was brought
out, on an examination or some OF
the officers and stockholders Of the
STANDARD Oil Company Of New jersey
THAT the capital stock Of the Indiana
corporation, the defendant before the
iCOu-t. was principally owned by the
New Jersey corporation. a corpora
itiOn not before the cOurt-tF.e trial
court adding (upOn no evidence how
lever 70 be found In the record and
upon no information specifically re-
iferred tO) that IN concessions Sf the
icharacter for which the defendant be-
fore the court had been indi-t d, tired
convicted, the New Jersey c1rporatioL
Twas noTa virgin offender
! "IS a sentence such as this, based on
reasoning such as that, sound2 Pass
tevidenCe or the information support
ing the trial courts comment IS to be
found in the record, would the com
lmenI, II duly proved. justify a SEN
itence such as IhiS-Cne that other
iwise would not have been imposed?
] NO monarch, no parliament. no JrIbu-
nal Of western Europe. for centuries
has pretended 20 have the right 10 nun
ish except after due trial under ali the
forms OF the law Can that rightfuIly
I be done here, on no other basis than
| the judges personal belief that the
| party marked by him for punishment
/ deserves punishment?
Wiped Out Capital Stock.
In another place the court says:
The defendant indicted. tried. and
convicted was the standard OH Com
pany Of Indiana The capital stock OF
this company is 100000. There IS
nothing in the record, in the way OF
! evidence, either before conviction or
after conviction, and before sentence.
that shows that the assets Of this cor