The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1908-09-11
STANDARD OIL co.
REPLIES To GOVT
PETITION
KEROSENE JOHNS" CONCERN
PLEADS THAT THE FEDERAL
COURTS ARGUMENTS WERE
FILLED WITH FLAWS.

CHICAGO, Sept. l0.-The answer
OF the Standard Oil Co. OF Indiana &c
the petition Of the government trust
| busters" for rehearing OF the case
| in which the corporation was found
guilty OF receiving rebates from the
Chicago Il Alton railroad. was filed to-
day in the United States court for the
northern district OF Illinois by John
5. Miller, Moritz Rosenthal and Al
fred ID. Eddy, counsel for the oil com
pany. The verdict in the original
case resulted In the famous S29.240,-
900 fine set by Judge Lands. From
that decision the defendants appealed.
The decision of the lower court was
reversed on appeals.
The government is now petitioning
for a rehearing and the Standard
Oil Co.'S answer, is in opposition TO
he appeal
The petition says In part:
1t is urged that the court should
give consideration to the purpose
which congress had in the passage OF
he act making 1t criminal for ship
pers in interstate commerce to accept
or receive concessions from the law
full. published transportation rates, the
idea being to strengthen the effective
ness OF the interstate commerce act.
All of this was deliberately present
I'd in former arguments. and full and
air consideration was given IT, There
nothing OF inequality OF rates, IA
vOritism or preference TO this DEFEND
ant averred or proved in this record.
fhe defendant is prosecuted for reeetv-
ing the same rate Cthe' 6seent=ratel
AS was open to other shippers under
similar circumstances
and conditions. The defendant was
not allowed to show that other snip
pers paid the same rate.
Now, obviously this evidence, II
admitted, would have tended TO dis
prove any contention that the Alton
showed any favoritLsm In applying the
scent tariff and not the alleged lS-
cent rate to the defendants shipments
because IL the Alton rate department
regarded the scent rate, and not an
IS-cent rate as the lawful rate. any
shipper who might apply would have
received the same G-cent rate which
was given to this defendant.
But 1t is not, after all, for the Sc
curing OF equality OF rates as TO all, or
preventing determinations and prefer
ences as between shippers the court
Is asked 20 reconsider the purpose or
the Elkins act The court is Invited
10 find a purpose on the part OF con-
gress 70 impose upon shippers the
duty OF ascertaining and knowing that
the rate they pay for transportation Is
the lawful rate, at the peril OF com
Uniting crime II it turns out other
wise.
Result Would Be Appalling.
Counsel argue that the proof need
not establish that the accused shipper
had knowledge OF the lawful rate 10
convict him OF crime for shipping at
lower rate which was given TO him by
he carrier; but that the shipper must
he held 10 have known that which
diligent endeayor would have enabled
him to find out Now II counsel were
held To SO rigid a rule as this. the re-.
suit would be appalling.
The ruling is that the shipper must
adhere 20 tho known rates. quite a
different matter
The size Of the fine and the con.
meeting OF the New Jersey companies
Is objected TO and decisions cited TO
prove their unwarrantedness.
III Is urged that the appeal be al.
lowed that the supreme court may
pass on the questions inYnlYed. thus
establishing a precedent The supreme
court already has decided these ques-
tons were not up TO them for ruling
The fact that the district and cir
cult courts have differed in this case
has no bearing In view OF the fact that
the latter has unanimously decided
against the former In this case.