The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-07-23
STANDARD OIL CASE
 MUST BE RETIRED

peals. was made on an appeal of the Standard Oil Company of indiana from the verdict rendered April IS, 1907, by which the company was found guilty Of accepting rebates. and was later nned by Judge Landis of the United States District Court. $29.240.O 900. the maximum under the counts of the in- dictment s
 The specific charge against the Standard; oil. Company of Indiana was that 1t had accepted rebates on ship ments of oil in car load lots from Whit < ing, Ind. to East St. Louis, IlIs, ov <the Chicago and Alton Railroad F < denne was adduced at the trial show ing that the company received rates one-third as large as other shippers were obliged to pay. It was contended by the counsel for the oil company that found otherwise.
 During the trial, counsel for the oil company refused to give >information called for by Judge Landis after he mad taken the case under advisement. The. court thereupon issued subpoenas Tor the officials of the Standard oil Company of New Jersey. among them 1ohn P. Rockefeller. These officiais appeared in court on July 6. 1907. and were personally examined by Judge Lands It developed from the aues- tions put by the court that the Indiana corporation against which indictments had been returned. ia owned by inc standard Oil Company of New Jersey, the earnings of which during the three years in which occurred the transac- tions covered by the Indictments. amounted to. nearly s2oo, ,oo0, ,ooo. ana that dividends averaging 40 per cent per annum were paid during that time. Judge Landis. after Keeping the case under advisement for several weeks. passed sentence on the Standard oil Company of@Indiana. Aug. a, 1907.
 The company entered motion for a new trial which was refused. and it then appealed from the decision of the Jury in the United States District. Court onsthe ground that the verdict was not based upon the facts.
 Must Be Retxfed..
 By unanimous opinion of thu Unitnd States Circuit Court of Appeals of inc seventh District, the famous case of the Government against the Standard oil company. in which the latter was fined $29. 240,000 by Judge Lands in t1 . District Court, must be retried. This opinion concurred. in by Judges Baker and Seaman was delivered here today by Judge Grosscup. who wrote the opinion.
 ion reads.
 The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case rsmanded with instructions to grant a new triaI ana proceed further in accordaAce with. this opinion.
 The opinion, begins with a brfef stata ment of the manner in which the I'd ss was brought from the District Courf , of Appeals Section of the interstate commerce act. relating, to the publish. Ing end ming of rates is quoted. and th he opinion continues: +
 There are 1se assiEnmenta of eYrar. h view of the conclusion, howevar. fo which we. have come, 1t .is ssrsnseessarv to review many of these assikufaenfs extensively stated, the ,sskfss ! ments of error which we shall review relate: -s ts r, ' ""
 s'Fifst-To the view. adopted by the Iriai court carried out h its rulings on the admission and lexclusion s,f. avtI dencey and embodied in its charge fo the jury that a shipper can be con victed of accepting a concession from the lawful published rate, even though tt Is not shown as bearing on the. maj ter of interest. that the shipper at sfg1A time of accepting said concession. knew what the lawful published rate actually was. E.8 ,'1, -
 ''Second-To the view adopted bv tha trial court that the number of ofrenEes is the numbeT of car loads of property transported. irrespective of what each carload. the whole or the part only of a single transaction resulting iri a shipment; and,
 sThird--Whether in the imposition of the fine named. the trial court abus- cd the discretion vested in the court.
 We shall take up these subjects in the order stated. the first being wheth- CT the shipper can, without error. be convicted of accepting accession from lawful published rate, even though 1t is not shown as bearing on the mat ter of intent. that the shipper at the time of accepting such concession. knew what the lawful published rate actually was, view of the law that Is embodied in the charge and carried out in the ruling excluding certain professed testimony including, that of one Edward Bogardus who being in absolute charge of the traffic affairs of