The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1908-08-28

Chicago, Aug. 24.-Thc governments
petition for a rehearing by the United
States court of appeals of the case
against Standard OIL company of In
diana was filed today. 1t represents as
authoratively stated the administra-
lions attempt to save the Elkins' act
and interstate law from be-
coming futile. The filing of the petit
ton marked the appearance of Attor-
ney General B%onaparte in the case.
Although 1t is not specifically stated
in the petition. 1t was agreed by the
counsel for the government following
the reversal by the appellate court Of
Judge Lands decision in which a $2e,-
10000 fine was imposed, hat If the
Interpretation of the law given by
Judges Grosscup, Seaman and Baker be
allowed to stand. successful prosecution
OF rebate cases against corporations
will be impossible in the future.
Synopsis of Petition.
a. synopsis of the petition follows:
trial up to the return of the verdict Of
guilty are the rulings of the trial Judge
other particulars his rulings are sustained.
The point on which the trial Judge is re-
v,ersed by the court of appeals relates to
the jury with reference to ignorance on
the part of the Standard Oil company OF
the lawful rate as a defense.
The court of appeals in its opinion has
not correctly stated how the judge ruled
on this subject.
to admit evidence to the effect that the
Standard Oil company did not know what
the lawful rate was. The fact is. and the
record so shows, that all evidence tending
to show, ignorance on the part Of the
Standard Oil company was admitted for
the consideration of the jury.
the part of a shipper Of what the lawful
rate was could be interposed as a de-
tense. but that it would not constitute a
was the result Of neglect on the part OF
part Of the shipper to resort to the sources
The government contends that this is
the correct construction of the statute on
this subject.
The court OF appeals lays down the rule
that 1t is necessary for the government to
show beyond a reasonable doubt, as a part
Of it's case that the shipper actually knew
what the lawful published and filed rate
was.
"Phantom Statute"
The government contends that this is
contrary to the general rule applicable in
criminal cases; that put into effect 1t
"a mere ~will-o'-the wisp of legislation, a
phantom statute, destitute OF strength or
substance"
The government contends in the petit
tated not only the record as to what evi-
dence was admitted. but has also mis-;
Judge placed upon the statute, and that
for this reason there should be a thorough
re-argument upon the only proposition as
to which the ruling of the trial Judge up
to the verdict of guilty, is reversed.
The government contends that an OK
animation of the record will show that the
ing to show want OF knowledge, but that
on the contrary all proper evidence tend
ing to show that the. defendant was ig-
legal rate was admitted for the consider
alton of the jury, and that there was am
PIE evidence to show that the defendant
In other words, the government contends
vigorously and with references to the rec
ord that the reyelsal Of the case, 50 far as
ence to ignorance on the part of the
shipper as a defense is concerned, is based
upon q nlisstatement by the court Of the
by " the teie court Of What the trial Judge ru1ed
with reference to the ADMISSION Of evil
The government strenuously contends
that the effect Of the construction of the
peals is to nullify the interstate
act so far as shippers are concerned: to
make its enforcement impossible, and to
able condition of railroad determinations
and favoritism which existed prior to its
passage.
Up to Supreme Court.
The government insists that before lay
ing down this harsh rule and practically
nullifying the law the court of appeals
should certify in accordance with the stat
ute this question to the supreme court for
fits decision: that no court short of the SUI
preme court Shout undertake practically
to wipe the interstate commerce act from
the statutes.
The petition states before the govern
ment IS required to try this case under
the rigid rule OF construction lad down by
this court; is It not manifestly fair ana
in this case, but in the interest OF q a mai
md definite construction Of this import
ant statute. That judgment he taken OF the
highest tribunal OF the nation?"
The government contends that the
down an erroneous rule for determining
the number OF offenses.
The government contends that each
shipment is the basis OF a distinct offense;
and that in this case each carload was a
SEPARATE shipment.
The circuit court of appeals has held
that there is hut one offense for each
settlement for freight.