The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-11-24
United States Attorney-General
Files Petition in Highest
Court of Land.
ASKS FOR WRIT TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
Insists That in Interest of the
Nation Entire Case Should
Be Reviewed.


tion for n writ of certiorari in the
Supreme Court of the United States,
urging that court to issue writ of
ccrtiorari TO the Circuit Court of Ap-
peals for the Seventh circuit to review
the judgment of that court reversing
the rulings Of Judge Lands in tho
case in which the Standard Oil COM
pany was fined S29,ooo,0O0 on charge
Of violating the antitrust law. The
attorney general takes the position that
the Court of Appeals was without
jurisdiction when it reversed Judge
Lands s decision.
The wording of the government S pc
tition indicates that the Department
of Justice is fully aware Of the court S
practice Of denying 80 per cent of such
petitions, The court grants these pc
titlons only when constitutional queS-
tions are involved, and the attorney
general makes strong effort 20 have
it appear that the present case falls
within this group. Much of the body
Of the petition is devoted to arguing
reasons why the court should review
the controversy.
Importance Of Case.
w uejutT, Says inc LNt
government is or is not right in its
contentious, we respectfully and earn
estly urge that the court should is
sue the writ The case is of the
first consequence. The principles to
be decided control the entire meaning
and purpose OF tho law and upon and
under policy of Congress. If, for
example, it is necessary that the
government should prove actual knowl-
.I,r lv no cb of nplD y,.f, vi
rate, the law will be altogether de-
prived of effect against the very ship
pers who violate it. In the view
of the government it is extremely im-
portant that the law should be de-
termined and expounded now, at this
stage of this present case by this
court. -
The attorney general also takes the
position that the Supreme court is
vested by law with authority to order
any case of which Circuit Court of
Appeals has final jurisdiction, to be
brought up by certiorarl and to de-
termine it in the same manner as if it
had been taken up on appeal of writ
of certiorari by the defendant. "It
cannot he, says, "be true that the
authority of this court to exercise
people in such case may be cut off by
a convicted defendants s choice of tie
forum inferiorem,
Another Point Raised.
Mr.. Bonaparte takes cognizance of
the fact that the Court of Appeals
failed to consider many OF the gov
ernment s assignments Of error, and it
is understood that this failure meant
that Judge Lands had not committed
other errors, and that therefore the
Appellate court decision was an affirma-
ton by it OF the other portion of the
decision. 1t is pointed out, however,
that the Standard Oil company takes
the opposite view. He adds:
"The trial Of this case consumed
many weeks and cost both the govern
ment and defendant very large sums
Of money. Several of the questions on
which the court of appeals thus refused
to pass arc absolutely vital, and the
prosecution must certainly fail if the
contention of tho defendant can be sus~
tanned as to any one of them. The re-
ply informs us that they will be again
raised at a second trial, and If the court
of appeals declined there to decide them
or to say what its silence means n
stronger case could hardly be presented
for the benefcent intervention of this
court by certiorari.
Right of Appeal.
Much attention is also given to the
original right Of the defendant to ap-
peal from Judge Landis's decision in
the court Of appeals. "Originally,"
says the petition, "when tho defendant
was tried and convicted that was the
end Of it. In giving him the right Of
appeal, the law never intended that the
appellate tribunal should interfere with
the sole discretion Of the trial court in
regard to the character or punishment
imposed. To do SO is to Interfere with
the discretion Of the lower court on the
ono hand and with the pardon power on
the other hand ~
On this point the attorney general
further says;
"The trial court committed no error
by holding the supplemental inquiry.
The trial court was not proceeding
under the statute within the limits of
punishment fixed by the statutes. If
so, there was no question of error of
law to be reviewed and the appellate
court had no legitimate function to per
form respecting the sentence. In con-
demniDg Judge Lands on this account,
the appellate court exceeded the bounds
Of its authority and usurped n judicial
power not belonging TO it. The power
and discretion to impose sentence is Il
personal power and discretion commit
ted to the trial judge and cannot be
reviewed or revised by any other tri-
bunal.'
Other Cases Involved.
Another reason why the court should
pass upon the case is set forth in the
fact that other cases charging the same
defendant with similar violations of the
law in various parts Of the country are
involved II mentions the case of the
Santa Fo Railway company, convicted
in the southern district of California
of violations Of this statute and sen
fenced to pay fine Of $3.50, 900, which
case is now pending in the circuit court
of appeals for the ninth circuit, and
raises the questions Of what constitutes
separate ofTense and tho proper
amount of fine.
'There are,' says the petition,
"other such cases pending in different
federal courts and awaiting the final
and conclusive determination OF the law
by this court
In cnnclnsinn thn utknrnnr-crn nrnl