New-York tribune., 1908-11-11
OIL REHEARlNG DENIED
CASE TO SUPREME COURT.
Fine of S29 900, 900 To Be Decided
bg Tribunal of Last Resort.

Chicago Nov 1o.-The governments petition Tor
rehear1nE of the case in which the United States
Circuit OF Appeals reversed the decision m
ing the Standard Oh Company OF Indiana s2ss 900
for. alleged rebatnS denied in the Court OF
ApoeaIs to-day The government viii bring the
whole matter before ire Supreme Court immediate
IL writ OF csrtiorari-
The government in its petition for rehearing in
tinlated that II opinion OF the judges Of the
Appellate Cou-t-Circsscup. Seaman and Baker
were allowed stand II would nullfy nearly every
shred of rate reform legislation accomplished by
President Roosevelt's administration. In summing
up its position counsel for the government ssid
that The opinion OF the Court OF Appeals as II
stood enormously stated material portions OF the
records. did injustice 10 the trial Judge Uandis)
left doubtful in q trial the rule OF law 10 be
applied as K knowledge the part OF the
shipper that he accepting Illegally low rate
and did make Il clear what 10 constitute
one offence trainload carl0t whole series
q shipments for which but settlement OF
freight charges had been made. II was further
alleged that the language OF the appellate judges
appeared 10 be in conflict with the language OF
the Supreme Court and with language used by the
presiding judge. Judge CrOsscup. IN previous sim
liar case. The petition closed with statement
that II the opinion the Court OF Appeals were
permitted 70 stand unmodi1ied II would tend 10
encourage disobedienoe 10 law. 10 impede the en-
forcement CT salutsry statutes and largely TO de-
feat their purpose
POINTS OF The RULING.
n over-uIing thu petition the court said:
The petition for q TeheaT1ng questions the cor
that relates the trial judges statement in pass
ing sentence. that ne was unable 10 indulge the
presumption that in this case the defendant was
convicted OF its virgin offence the point OF the
petition being that in he use o. lhe Horo de-
fenda1t' connection with virgin offence the
Of Indiana and moi 70 the STANDARD oil Company
OF New Jersey. The trial court in passing sen
tence. expressly stated that the Standard Oh CON-
pany Of Indiana was only the nominal defendant
The Standard Oil Company OF New Jersey BENG
The sentence related 10 the Standard OIL Company
o[ New Jersey and not 70 the Standard Oil Com
pany OF Indiana, includirT the statement that the
revenues Of the Offend and the character Of
The charge showed thu aey had a peculiar Ella
tion 10 each otheT-tf evenues referred 70 ooF1-
cusy being the revenues Of the Standara %, SoILl
pany of New Jersey-4o per cent on Sleooooc cst-Eo
being in the record al ali And counsel for the
government plant their Justification OF the dne
standard OF Company OF Indiana. but OF the
Standard Oh Company Of New Jersey But as q
ne opIlIen SO Tnodifed 4hat vhiIe the language
used to express the point is changed the sub
stance OF the point involved will be more clearly
The petition for 8 rehearing also questions the
correctness Of the text Of that portion OF the opiT-
ion in which dealing with the question whether
shipper is guilty o. accepting concession even
though II Is shown taat TIE shipper at the time or
lawfully published rate actually was. the view
t in he -1l:ings excIudirE certain 1rorrered tes
1iTnony. including that Of Edward Bogardus.
ne point OF the complaint being that the tes-
Tirnony OF Bogardus. as 10 whether he knows did
road. not excluded"
Now. as Inarfe- o. what physically went into
the record. BcSarCus's testimony admitted.
oG- TetbeT he sd made ace fe4eTI enesvoP o
- ascertain TIE rate-an issue wholly different
from the one upon which il offered. viz:
Whether or not defendant had knowledge Of what
The lawfully established rate was On the latter
issue The testimony q Bossrdus was efTectually
excluded ne charge 20 the Jury as II il had been
physically expunge6 from the records
ia Attorney general Bouaparte. Assistant Attorney
General Frank B kellogg. District Attorney Ed
wa-d V Sims and Special Assistant United States
Attorney James H WiIkerson. whose names were
signed the petition. the following paragraph:
Courts have the right 10 expect that counsel &C
cJstomed 10 practice in the courts OF review
IN ia discussions and opinions Of these courts
but viii not misuse such terms 70 spread risin-
formation respecting judgment that, in the
~ the is bound 10 attract wide public atten-
tior-a rernariy the ge-Tuaneness Of which the bar
- fbe co4nT-[- viii rsiL-e ,r,ar v-e 60 49, a
that has be done 70 obviate the objection made
opinion objected TO win read: A view Of the law
that is embodied IN the charge and carried out in
CHARGE on That PoLNS the proteTed testi,
portion being the only words inserted.
immediately upon the overruling OF the petition
District Attorney Sims applied for stay Of man
ds+e which was granted. thus leaving the case
e-nulerr's attempt 10 have the case taken before
the Supreme Court OF the United States q writ
o. rertiorarl.
Washington. Nov. 1O-It was stated at the De-
parJrnert OF Justice to-day that IN view of the
large amount Of money involved. the important
questions % law and the popular interest in the
case. the government would rest on the de-
csioa o. the Circuit Court OF Appeals in the Stand
ard on case. but that the case would be taken 10
the Supreme Court OF the United States at the
earliest possible day This viii done by an ap-
pIicati3n the court for the allowance OF a writ
of cerIlora-1- Cases like the II point are not
Hppeslable the Supreme Court OF the United
States 10y either SIDE. but application for
ny the Supreme Court must be made 10 the court
by the defeated party Notice OF application OF
this kind must be given 70 the other side, and op-
porruuity afforded opposing counsel file their
brief n opposition
The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it
until November 60 The application. therefore.
probably VIII be submitted 10 the court that
time.
N 2 Elliott. OF counsel for the Standard Oil
Company. declined yesterday 10 discuss the signif
cance the decision OF the United States Circuit
Court Of Appeals in the Standard on case although
ne expressed his satisfaction al the outcome.
Immediately following the receipt OF the OF
7he decision from Chicago conference Of the
heads OF the Standard OH Company was held in
Nj EIiott's Office. As far as could be learned John
. Rockefeller not present