The morning journal-courier., 1908-07-23
Error of the Trial Court Is Cited.


 The error of the trial court In talk ing away from the plaintiff in error It's right 10 submit to the jury the whole question of whether 1t had knowledge of the tariff sheet from which It Is said to have accepted concession, and therefore with intent to violate the law whether the rate paid was not paid in the honest belief that 1t was the lawful rate-is an error that rises Into one of solid substance"
 Taking up the question ae to whether each shipment constituted q separate offense by which Interpretation of the law Judge Landls imposed the largest fine In history of the Standard oil com pany, the court has this to say:
 Courts Decision as to Great Fine.
 "The gist of the offense Is the &C., ceptance of Q concession, irrespective of whether the property involved was carloads, trainloads or pounds. Had shipper fully and finally accepted a conceseion when he has done nothing
 
 that less than the published and filed rates shall be paid for the transporta. tlon of his property? Is 1t not neces- sary that the transaction be closed by actual payment of the lower rate In the rebate the shipper paid In the first instance the full rate tc the carrier and afterwards received back part Manifestly, the offensc of accepting rebate has not been com mitted until the shipper has taken back a part of the first money, whereby his property has been transported at less than the awful rate. Proof that he agreed to accept return of a part of the full rate stopping there--would no support an indictment for accepting z rebate. Such an 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.
 "The concession differs from the re bate only in this: That in the conces- sion the shipper, instead of paying the full rate and receiving back a part merely settles for the difference The result Is the same-the property | | transported for the same amount les than the lawful rate. And there Is m basis in the statutes for holding that II the case of accepting a concession tn transaction Is consummated, and tn, door of repentance Is closed at an, moment earlier than In the case of ac cepting a rebate. So proof that ship per has agreed to accept a concession stopping there will not sup port an indictment for accepting a con cession until the intended wrong be comes an accomplished fact.
 "The number of offenses in tn present case should have been ascer tained in accordance with these prin ciples. The measure adopted by tn trial court was wholly arbitrary--ha no basis in any intention or fixed rul discoverable In the statutes. And n other way of measuring the numbe of offenses seems to have been give a thought either by the governmen or the trial court.
 Did Judge Landis Abuse His Discre
 tion?
 As. to whether Judge Landis in i'm posing the monumental fine abuse the discretion vested in the court, tn court opinion says
 Briefly stated, the reason of tn trial court for imposing this sentenc was because after conviction and be fore sentence it was brought out that the capital stock of tn Standard Oil company of Indiana, tn defendant before the court, was prin cipally owned by the New Jersey COT poration, corporation not before tn court--the trial court adding (upo