The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-11-11
STANDARD OIL WINS
SECOND BIG VICTORY
Continued from PAGE 1.

they had a peculiar relation to each
other-the revenues referred to OBJ
viously being the revenues of the
Standard Oil company of New jersey
40 per cent on 500 900, o00-no revenues
of the Standard Oil company of In
diana being in the record at all And
counsel for the government plant their
justification of the fine upon the show
ing OF the revenues, not of the Stand
ard Oil company of Indiana, but of the
Standard Oil company of New Jersey.
But as suggestion that that line in
the text of the opinion be changed, the
suggestion will be accepted and the
opinion so amplified that while the Lam
guage used to express the point is
changed the substance of the principal
involved will be more clearly brought
out.
'The petition for a rehearing also
questions the correctness of the text of
that portion of the opinion, in which,
dealing with the question whether a
shipper is guilty of accepting con-
cession, even though 1t is shown that
the shipper at the time of accepting
such concessions did not know what
the lawfully published rate actually
was, the view taken by the trial court
is said to be "a view of the law that is
embodied in the> charge, and carried
out in the rulings. excluding certain
preferred testimony, including that of
one Edward BogarduS-the point of the
complaint being that the testimony of
Bogardus as to whether he knew or
did not know of an 1S-cent rate over the
Alton road, was not excluded
Now, as a matter as to what physic-
ally went into the record, Bogardus'
testimony was admitted and went to
the jury on the issue adopted by the
court whether he had made 'diligent
endeavor' to ascertain the rate-an is
sue wholly different from the one upon
which il was offered. viz: Whether or
not defendant had knowledge of what
the lawfully established rate was. On
the latter issue the testimony of Bo-
gardus was as effectually excluded by
the charge to the jury as If it had been
physically expunged from the record"
Attorneys Scored.
In closing, the court of appeals pays its
respects to Attorney General Bonaparte,
Special Assistant Attorney General Frank
B. Kellogg, District Attorney Edward w.
Sims and Special Assistant United States
Attorney James H Walkerson, whose
names were signed to the petition, in the
following paragraph:
Courts have the right to expect coun-
sci accustomed to practice in the courts OF
review, not only to know the meaning OF
legal terms constantly in use in discus
SlOnS ana ODlDlO0S VI llCSc COQl -, Jul
will not misuse such terms to spread mis-
information respecting a judgment that
in the nature of the case, is bound to at
tract wide public attention-a remark the
germaneness of which the bar Of the
country will perceive when We say that
all that has to be done TO obviate the OBJ
lection made is to insert a clause so that
the portion of the opinion objected to will
read a view of the law that is embodied
In the charge and carried out in the ruling
excluding, AS A RESULT OF THE
CHARGE ON THAT POINT, the prof
ferred testimony of one Edward Bogardus
the capitalized portion being the only
words inserted
"a Separate Offense."
In addition to the slight change just
mentioned, Judge Baker amplified the
original opinion by two paragraphs clari-
stitutes a separate offense and dealing
with the governments contention that one
corporation may use another to commit
offense, thus escaping punishment.
Judge Baker said:
THE offense of accepting a concession
Is the transaction that the given rebate
communicated the unit of mere meas
urement of the physical thing transported
but the transaction whereby the ship
per, for the thing shipped. no matter how
great or how little its quantity, received
a rate different from the established rate
the wide range between maximum and
minimum punishment being doubtless
thought to be a sufficient range within
which to differentiate the punishment
adapted to one transaction from the pun
ishment adapted from another"
On the second point. Judge Baker said:
Must Have Day in Court.
True 1t Is. that if one corporation uses
another corporation to violate law Just as
If one individual uses another individual
to violate law. such offender ought not,