Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1908-09-10
Deals Largely in GeneraIities
UNFOLDING Circuit Court
Finding.
SARCASTIC IN PLACES
lntimated on Several Points
Government Attorneys
We're Ignorant.

Chicago, Sept 10.-Counsel for the
Standard Oil company of Indiana in
an answer filed today to the petition
of the government attorneys for re-
hearing of the appeal from Judge Ian
dis Judgment, filming the company
S29, 100000 for violations of the re-
bate laws, upheld the decision of
Judges Grosscup, Baker and Seaman
in the United States circuit court of
appeals reversing judgment and lift
ing the burden of the enormous fine
as good law and amply justified by
the record in the case.
Taken Up Point by Point.
Point by point the answer takes up
the arguments of the petition for re-
hearing which set forth alleged errors
and assert that the suggestion of the
government counsel that a rehearing
be granted in order to certify the
question to the federal supreme court
is not a proper one because there was
no division of opinion among the
judges of the reviewing court.
heiu Oh NO consequences
In the petition for a rehearing the
reviewing judges are charged with as
suming that Judge Landis attempted
to try and punish the Standard Oil
company of New Jersey in the orig
inal proceedings which were against
the Standard Oil company of Indiana.
On this point the answer declares it
tn hn Of
4 lwheener The trial court referred to the
New Jersey company or the Indiana
company as the virgin offender"
Real Point, Ability to Pay.
''The real point is says the answer,
did the trial court in imposing pun
relation between the Standard Oil
company of New Jersey and the Stand
ard Oil company of Indiana and did
it base it's fine upon the wealth of the
Standard Oil company of New Jersey
and its ability to pay instead of upon
the wealth of the Standard Oil COM
pany of Indiana and its ability to pay"
Quotes More Fully.
To determine this question the
Standard Oil attorneys assert that the
few sentences extracted by the gov
eminent counsel from the words of
Judge Landis are not sufficient and
quote at length from Judge Landis'
opinion to show that he referred to
the New Jersey corporation as the
real defendant and to the Indiana
company as the nominal defendant"
The conclusion stated by the answer
is: THAT the enormous fine inflicted
upon the defendant was because 'of
ownership of its stock by the Stand
ard Oil company of New Jersey and
because of the financial standing of
the latter corporation is beyond dis
pute when the entire opinion of the
: trial court is considered"
Held n Reiterntion.
A large part of the petition for a
lrehearing, the answer asserts. is a re-
iteration of points which no one dis
lputes and counsel for the defendant
continue their attack on the petition
by declaring that the government at
torneys are mistaken in their inter
Ipretation of the Armour case cited in
the petition and in suggesting that the
reviewing court is in conflict with the
supreme court.
Not UPderstood, II Is Said.
On the question of knowledge of a
lawful rate on the part of the defend.
ant shipper which was one OF the
, points ON which great emphasis was
laid in the petition for rehearing
the answer asserts that exceptions OF
the governments counsel are based
on misapprehension of the opinion
and records of the case. The exclu
sion of certain evidence and the ques
= ton of intent are discussed in detail
s in which it is asserted that the re
l. viewing court was justified in the ru
d ing which it made.
ri Not Really Any Crowd.
't On the point of number of offense
" which the petition for rehearing a
s. serted was obscure in the OPT
IN ion of the reviewing couI
ct the answer contends that the COVER
e. ment's counsel has raised a clot
70 where there is none and that the r,
Sc ing of the court clearly shows that Il
ed number of offenses was regulated |
N settlements and payments of viii,
Id there were SO and not by carloa,
ID numbering 1,462 on which the fine vi
'predicated