Los Angeles herald., 1908-11-11
FEDERAL APPEAL
IN REVERSAL OF
OIL FINE DENIED
REHEARlNG REFUSED; R0CKE-
TELLER WINS
INpIANA's s2s,ooo,ooo PENALTY
SEEMS LOST
Government, However, May Carry
Case to U. S. Supreme Court on
Writ of certIorarl-Declslon
Much Deplored
fBu Associated Press.l

NHICAGO, Nov. 10.-Ine govern
ment's petition for rehearing of
~ the case in which the United
states circuit court of appeals reversed
the trial court in fining tho Standard
OH company in Indiana $2s,S4O'oOO Tor
alleged rebating, was denied IN the
court of appeals today.
1t is authoritatively stated that the
government will now attempt to bring
the whole matter before the supreme
court on a writ of certiorari
The government in its petition for
rebearing intimated that if the opin-
ions OF the judges of the appellate
court-Grosscup Seaman and Baker
were allowed to stand 1t would nulll1y
nearly every shred of rate reformatory
legislation accomplished by the Roose-
welt administration.
In summing up it's position counsel
for the government said that the opln-
ion of the court of appeals, as 1t STOOD,
erroneously stated material portions or
the record; did injustice to the trlal
Judge Iandis): left doubtful, in a new
trial, the rule of law to be applied poth
as to kno ledge on the part OF the
shipper that he was accepting an ille-
galIv low rate; did not make it clear
what was to constitute an offense--a
trainload, a carload or a whole series
of Shipments, for which but one settle
ment of freight charges had been made
Language Conflicting
IT was further alleged that the Ian
guage of the appellate judges appeared
to be in conflict with the language OF
tha supreme court and with language
ut,d by the presiding judge, Judge
Grosscup, in a previous similar case.
The petit closed With statement
that if the opinion of the court of ap-
peals were permitted to stand unmodi-
fed ii would tend to encourage dis
obedience to the law; to impede the en-
forcement of salutary statutes and
largely to defeat their purpose.
In overruling the petition the court
said:
.'The petition for rehearing respect
ing the correctness of the testimony OF
+ that portion of the opinion that related
to the trial judges statement in pass
ing sentence that he was unable TO In
dulge the presumption that in this
case the defendant was convicted OF its
virgin offense'-the point of the petition
being that in the use of the word de-
fendant in connection with virgin OF
fense' the trial court referred to the
Standard Oil company of Indiana and
NOT to the Standard Oil company of
New Jersey.
Defendant NomnaIly
'aThe trial court in passing sentence
expressly stated that the Standard OIL
company of Indiana was but the NOM
inal defendant, the Standard Oil COM
pany of New Jersey being the real de-
fendant, and every word almost of the
trial court in arriving at its conclusion
respecting the sentence related to the
Standard Oil company of New Jersey
and not to the Standard Oil company of
Indiana, including the statement that
the revenues of the offender and the
character of the crime showed that
they had a peculiar relation to each
other-the revenues referred to obvious
" being the revenues of the Standard
OIL company of New Jersey-40 per
cent on 500, ,0O0 000-no revenues of the
Standard Oil company Of Indiana be-
ing in the record at all.
"And counsel for the government
plant their justification of the fine
upon the showing of the revenues
not of the Standard Oil company of
Indiana-but of the Standard Oil COM
pany of New Jersey. But as a sugges-
ton that that line in the test of the
opinion be changed the suggestion will
be accepted and the opinion so ampli-
fed that while the language used to
express the point is changed the sub
stance of the principle involved will be
more clearly brought out"