Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1908-07-22
Did Trial Court Abuse Discretion.

Did Trial Court Abuse Discretion.
Observation-Disclosures in supposition OF
the fine named, the trial court abused
the discretion of the court"
The opinion then exhaustively re-
views each subject and holds that Lam
dis erred in excluding certain witnesses
and exhibits of tariff sheets, and in
charging the jury that to show the de-
.fendant accepted the concession know
ingly, it was not necessary to establish
that the defendant had actual knowl-
edge of the lawful rate, the opinion
holding the interstate commerce act
did not contemplate that the shipper
should be guilty Of having accepted
the concession, merely because they
took the word of the carrier or his
agent, as to what the rate was.
imposes Largest Fine in History.
Taking Tip the question as to whether
each shipment constituted a separate
offense, by which Interpretation of the
law, Judge Lands imposed the largest
fine in history on the Standard Com
pany, the court has this to say: The
gist Of the offense is the acceptance
of a concession, irrespective Of whether
the property involved was carloads.
train loads or pounds. Has the shipper
fully and finally accepted the conces-
sion, wherl he has done nothing more
than agree with the carrier that less
than the published and filed rates shall
be paid for the transportation of his
property, is it not necessary that the
transaction be closed by the actual
\ ne ~, Low T,,f
bate the shipper paid in the first in
stance the full rate to the carrier and
afterwards received back part. Mani
festly the offense of accepting the re-
bate has not been committed until the
shipper has taken back part of the first
money, whereby his property has been
transported at less than the lawful
rate. Proof that he agreed to accept
the return of \ part of the full rate
adopted would not support the indict-
ment for accepting the rebate. Such
agreement is not binding; and at any
time before it's complete conclusion the
shipper may repent and insist upon the
carrier keeping the whole amount. So
proof that the shipper has agreed to
accept a concession, and stopping there,
will not support the indictment for ac-
cepting concession until the intended
wrong becomes an accomplished fact.
Trial Court Criticized.
The number of offenses in the pres
ent case should have been ascertained
In accordance with these principles.
The measure adopted by the trial court
was wholly arbitrary and had no basis
In any intention or fixed rule discover
o1 h in, p<o ~,
of measuring the number of offenses
seems to have been given though
either by the government of the trial
court
A Roast for Judge Lands.
AS to whether Judge Lands in inn
posing the monumental fine abused the
discretion vested in the court the opin-
ion says:
Briefly stated, the reason of the trial
court for imposing this sentence was
because, after conviction and before
sentence, it was brought out that the
capital stock Of the Standard Oil COM
pany of Indiana was principally owned
by the New Jersey corporation, a cor
poration not before the court for trial"
and adding: Upon no evidence, how
ever, to be found in the record and up
on no information specifically referred
to in the concessions and in the
charges for which defendant before the
court had been indicted, tried. and con-
victed, the New Jersey corporation was
not the virgin offender. Is a sentence
such as This sound? Can the court
without abuse Of judicial discretion
wipe out all the property of defend
q n all otc
to which its creditors look, in an ef-
fort to reach and punish a party that
is not before the court A party tina:
Is not even indicted, can an American
Judge without abuse Of judicial discre-
ton condemn any one who has not had
his day In court. That to our mind Is
q strange doctrine in Anglo-Saxon jur-
isprudence. Can that rfghtfully be
done here on no other basis than the
judges personal belief that the party
marked by him for punishment de-
serves punishment? II SO it is because
the man who happens to be judge is
above the law"
Fine Heaviest Known.
The trial of the Standard Oil Com
pany Of Indiana for acceptance Of re-
bates from the Chicago and Alton and !
other railroads was the most notable |
Of the trust prosecutions inaugurated
by the government, and the fine at
tending the verdict of guilty was the
greatest ever imposed in the history
Of English law.
The indictments were returned in
August. 1905, the oil company being
charged with obtaining concessions
n shipments between its plant at