The Bon Homme County independent. [volume] (Tabor, S.D.) 1904-1913, 1908-08-27

II .#H#t .".Ha.# .t..w- $3.50 n.HHaH4t# LtH#HFtI.#ah
Chicago, Aug. 24.-The governments
petition for a rehearing by the United
States court OF appeals OF the case
against Standard Oil company of In
diana was filed today. II represents as
suthoratively stated the administra-
TONS attempt to save the Elkins' act
and interstate commerce law from be-
coming futile. The filing of the petit
ton marked the appearance OF Attor-
ney General Bonaparte In the case.
Although 1t is not specifically stated
In the petition, 1t was agreed by the
counsel for the government following
the reversal by the appellate court Of
Judge Lands decision in which a $685.
100000 fine was imposed, that IL the
Interpretation OF the law given by
Judges Grosscup, Seaman and Baker be
allowed to stand, successful prosecution
OF rebate cases against corporations
VIII be impossible In the future.
Synopsis of Petition,
A synopsis OF the petition follows:
On but q single point Involved in this
trial up to the return OF the verdict OF
guilty are the rulings of the trial judge
criticized by the court of appeals. In all
other particulars his rulings are sustained.
The point on which the trial judge is re-
versed by the court OF appeals relates 10
his rulings on evidence and his charge to
the Jury with reference to ignorance on
NAAS# 500 ~ -. SAAS LSAA "a
the lawful rate as a defense. N
The court of appeals. in fits opinion has
not correctly stated how the judge ruled
1t Is said in the opinion that he refused
to admit evidence to the effect that the
Standard Oil ompany did not know what
record so shows, thai all evidence tending
10, show ignorance on the part OF the
Standard Oil company was admitted for
the consideration OF the jury.
nh .tPfaN 4Yt1 lvsttla1 chat tonaroVaA An
the part of a shipper of what the lawful
rate was could be interposed as a de-
Tense, but that II would not constitute a
defense If 1t appeared that the ignorance
the shipper or OF wllful failure on the
part OF the shipper TO resort to the sources
of Information which were available.
The government contends that this Is
the correct construction OF the statute on
this subject. #r I'd
The court Of appeals lays down the rule
that 1t is necessary for the government to
show beyond a reasonable doubt. as a part
of Its case that the shipper actually knew
what the lawful published and filed rate
was. @ @ Es.tEH &U Ta ~
"Phantom Statute" .
The government contends that this Is
an impossible rule; that 1t Is contrary to
the purpose of the Elkins act; that 1t Is
'icontrary to the general rule applicable In
criminal cases; that put Into effect 1T
would make the Interstate commerce act
ga mere will-o'-the wisp of legislation, a
phantom statute, destitute Of strength or
substance r. 3E1a L
ton that the court OF appeals has mis-
tated not only the record as to what evil
dencc was admitted, but has also mis-
stated the construction which the trial
Judge placed upon the statute, and that
for this reason there hou be a thorough
re-argument upon the only proposition as
to which the ruling OF the trial Judge up
The government contends that an OK
animation OF the record will show that the
court did not rule out the testimony tend
ing to show want of knowledge, but that
on the contrary all proper evidence tend
ing to show that the defendant was ig-
norant OF the facts with reference TO the
legal rate was admitted for the consider
Die evidence to show that the defendant
did know what the legal,rate was.
In other words, the government contends
vigorously and with references to the rec
ord that the reyeIsal OF the case, so far as
the ruling OF the trial Judge with refor-
ence to Ignorance on the part Of the
shipper as a defense Is concerned, is based
record in the case as to the admission Of
the evidence and TO a misunderstanding
by the court OF what the trial Judge ruled
with reference to the admission of evil
dence and how he really charged the jury.
The government strenuously contends
that the effect of the construction of the
statute announced by the court Of APP
DedlS is TO nuIilIy IHS hlLcESIdl0 CbtnIlIcISc
act SO far as shippers are concerned: to
make its enforcement impossible, and to
plunge the country again into the deplor-
able condition of railroad determinations
and favoritism which existed prior to its
passage.
Up to Supreme Court. ..#
The government insists that before Law
ing down this harsh rule and practically
nullifying the law the court OF appeals
should certify In accordance with the stat
ute this question to the supreme court for
Its decision: that no court short of the SUI
Oprenne court should undertake practically
to wipe the interstate act from
the statutes. s.
The petition states before the govern
ment Is required to try this case under
the rigid rule of construction lad down by
this court, is 1t not manifestly fair and
right I'm the interest not only OF justice
in this case. but in the interest Of a final
and definite construction OF this import
ant statute. that Judgment be taken OF the
highest tribune4 of the nation?'
The government contends Z that the
court OF appeals In its opinion, has laid
down an erroneous rule for determining
the number OF offenses.
The government contends that Saoh
shipment is the basis OF q distinct ~offense:
, and that in this case each carload was a
separate shipment. III .
The circuit court OF appeals has held
that there is but one offense for each
settlement for freight. .
Grosscup to Contrary.
"a -rb,- ~ p,aY,t .offno againSt THE tha