The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1908-08-01

Chicago, July 22.-The federal court
of appeals today reversed the decision
of Judge X. M. Landis in filming the
Standard Oil Company Of Indiana $780,
100000.
The higher court orders that the
case be given rehearing and remands
it for that purpose.
The decision is scathing in its ar
raignment of Judge Lands, holding
that he imposed the fine on the cor
poration when it had not been indict-
ed and was not even on trial.
When Judge Lands rendered the de-
cision nearly year ago, assessing the
greatest fine ever known in the his
tory of Jurisprudence, it was the SEN
sation of the day. The case was
based upon alleged rebating on oil
shipped by the Standard Oil Company
of Indiana.
Great Shock to Government.
Lands assessed the highest possible
fine in each separate alleged offense,
making the enormous total of $29, 24O,-
900. The decision today came as
great shock to the government coun-
sci in the trust busting cases, as they
appeared confident on Tuesday that
Lands decision would be affirmed in
every particular.
The federal court of appeals, which
handed down the decision today, is
composed of Judges Peter s. Grosscup,
Francis E. Baker and William H. Sea-
man.
The Standard Oil Company Of Indi-
ana is one of the subsidiary companies
of the Standard Oil Company OF New
Jersey. 1t has capital stock OF only
$1,O0O,0OO, but the government inves-
tigatlon showed that during some peri
DDS it has earned more than 1000 per
cent profits.
Text Of Decision.
Judge Grosscup delivered the opin-
ion, which, in part, follows:
Briefly, the reasons for imposing
the sentence was because, after con-
viction and before the sentence, it was
brought out in the examination of the
officers and stockholders of the Stand
ard Oil Company of New Jersey that
the stock of the Standard Oil Company
of Indiana was owned principally, by
the New Jersey corporation. That cor
poration was not before the court for
trial, the court adding-upon evidence,
however, to be found in the record,
but upon no information specifically
referred to-that in concessions of the
character for which the defendant be-
fore the court was indicted, the. New
Jersey corporation was not the virgin
offender
Reasoning Not Sound.
els a sentence such as this, based
on reasoning such as that, sound? Can
the court, without abuse of judicial dis
erection, wipe out all the property of
the defendant before the court and all
the assets to which its creditors look.
in an effort to punish party that has
not Dc0u COuVlCCcu, AOt IlACu nAu NV
even indicted?
"Can an American Judge, without
abuse of judicial discretion, condemn
anyone who has not had his day in
court?
"That, to our mind, is a strange doc
trine of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.
"No monarch, no parliament and no
tribunal of western Europe for cen
turtles has pretended to have the right
to punish except after due trial under
the forms of law.
"Can that rightfully be done here on
the basis of the judges personal be-
lief that the party marked by him for
punishment deserves this punishment?
If that is so, it is because the man
who happens to be Judge is above the
law"
The decision was unanimous, being
signed by all three judges of the court.
Attorney Sims Statement.
United States District Attorney
Sims, who led the prosecution of the
case, today said:
''The effect of the decision, If the