The Elbert County tribune., 1908-08-27
CASE AGAINST
STANDARD OIL
ATTORNEY GENERAL BoNAPARTE
PETITIONS COURT OF AP-
PEALs FOR REHEARINo.
UPH0LDs LANDIs' FINE
ALLEGES THAT JUDGE GROSS
CUPS DECISION ERRs AS TO
STATUTES AND EVIDENCE.

Chicago.-The governments petition
for a rehearlng by the' United states
Court of Appeals of the case against
the Standard Oil Company of Indiana
was filed Friday and represents, 1t Is
stated, the administration's attempt 10
save the Ellxin's act and the Interstate
Commerce law from becoming futile.
The filing Of the petition marked
the appearance of Attorney General
Bonaparte In the case, as well as that
of Frank B. Kellogg. who is special
assistant to the attorney general. Be-
sides these two names the petition is
signed by Edwin W. Sims, United
6tates district attorney at Chicago, and
Special Assistant James III. Wilkerson,
both of whom presented the govern
ments side of the case in the original
hearing before Judge Landis. who ad-
ministered the famous fine of $29,240,-
600 against the defendant.
May concern, which through cor
porate organization and railroad IA
voritism has established gigantic
monopoly in territory with popula-
ton of millions and concentrated
business many thousand times as large
as that carried on by the ordinary citi-
zen. plead in mitigation of punishment
|
tions of the law that the number OF
offenses which 1t has committed and
for which it is required to answer,
has been in proportion to the magni-
tude of its business"
| This Is the question which Attorney
General Bonoparte and associate coun.
sci put squarely to the United States
| Circuit Court of Appeals in their peti-
ton for a rehearing of the case against
the Standard Oil Company of Indiana.
rs this court to be understood" the
petition asks, "as announcing the rule
that In case 1t does not agree with the
trial judge as to the amount OF pun
ishment which should have been i'm
posed, the sentence will be reversed
on the ground that 1t was an abuse of
judicial discretion?
every day defendants are fined
many times more than the value of all
the property they possess.
'Is the principle different because
the amount involved is measured by
hundreds of dollars in one case and by
millions in the other?'
The profits of the oil company, $780,
5S3, ,20S in four years. are cited as am
ply justifying Judge Landis in doing
precisely what he did. The petition
says:
'The trial judge did that which is
done in every criminal case. He sought
to inform himself as to who the de-
fendant was; as to whether the crime
committed embraced more Of wicked
ness than the indictment charged; or,
whether on the other hand, there were
circumstances of mitigation"
The petition asks:
May shipper successfully plead
ignorance of the lawful rate. when that
ignorance is the result Of his own neg
ligence or of his failure to avail him.
self of the sources of knowledge at
his commando"
To permit such a defense, the petition
says, rs to make of the law a mere
will-o- -the-wisp of legislation, a phan-
tom statute destitute Of strength or
substance"
In conclusion, the government di-
rects attention to the following con-
| tentions:
THAT the opinion of this court is
based upon a misconception of the
record with reference to the rulings
Of the trial Judge as to the admission
Of evidence tending to show want of
knowledge, and with reference to his
construction of the statute on tnat
subject, and the theory on which the
case was tried.
"That the Interpretation of the stat
ute by this court, Imposing no duty on
the shipper and permitting a defense
of ignorance to be made without regard
to the negligence Of the shipper. is
contrary to the language of the statute
and to It's purpose and seriously i'm
pairs the efficiency Of the act.
"That the criticism Of the trial Judge
for abuse of discretion rests upon a
wrong assumption of what the trial
Judge actually did and assumes that
he attempted to try and punish the
Standard OIL Company of New Jersey
THAT the ruling stated In the opin-
lon to the effect that fine is exces-
sive when 1t exceeds in amount the
ability of the defendant to pay is an
innovation in criminal law.
THAT, in short the opinion as II
stands erroneously states material
portions of the record; does injustice
to the trial Judge; leaves doubtful in
new trial the rule of law to be ap
rt'ed, both as to knowledge on the
part Of the shipper. and as to the mum
ber Of offenses; appears to be in con
flict with the language of the Supreme
Court and with the previous Language
Of the presiding Judge of this court
and with the great weight of legal au
thority; and, If permitted to remain
unmodified, will tend to encourage dis
obedience to law, to impede the en-
forcement of salutary statutes ant
largely to defeat their purpose"
|