The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1908-08-29
GOVERNMENT ASKS A RE-
HEARING OF STANDARD
OIL CASES.
Petition Represents Attempt Of
Administration to Save Elkins
Act and Interstate Commerce
Law from Innocuous Desuetude.
Basis for Ruling.

United States court Of appeals in the
case against the Standard Oil Compa-
nv, Of Indiana, has been filed and rep
resents the administration attempt to
save the Elkins act and the interstate
commerce law from being futile.
The filing Of the petition marked the
appearance Of Attorney General Bona
parte in the case, as well as that Of
Frank B. Kellogg, who is a special as
sistant to the attorney general. Besides
these two, the petition is signed by
Edwin w. Sims. United States district
attorney at Chicago, and Special As
sistant James III. Wilkerson, both of
whom presented the governments side
of the case in the original trial before
Judge Landis, who administered the
famous fine of 500, 240, 900, against
the defendant.
Although it is not specifically stated
in the petition, it was agreed by coun-
sci for the government IN their confer
ence at Lenox, Mass, following the
reversal by the appellate court OF
Judge Lands decision, that if the in
depreciation of the law given by Judges
Grosscup, Seaman and Baker were al
lowed to stand successful prosecution
of the rebate cases against corporations
would be impossible in the future.
The lawyers at the conference, over
which the attorney general Of the Unit
ed States presided, were unit in ex-
pressing the opinion that the reforms
in rebate matters brought about by the
Roosevelt administration would repre-
sent so much loss of time unless the
higher court can be convinced of an
error in the construction Of the law !:
The petition continues:
Basis For Ruling
''The point on which the trial judge
is reversed by the court of appeals re-
lates to his ruling on evidence and his
charge to the jury with reference to
the ignorance on the part of the Stand
ard Oil company of the lawful rate as
defense. The court of appeals in it's
opinion has not stated how the judge
ruled on thissubject.
Since the petition declares that
appeals states that Judge Landis re-
fused to admit evidence to the effect
that the Standard Oil Company did
not know what the lawful rate was,
the record Of the proceedings in the
lower court shows that such evidence
was admitted.
Although the government points out
what it considers other errors in the
opinion of the appellate court, the
allegation that the Standard Oil COM
pany did not know it was not paying
the legal rate is regarded as the vital
point. If with the evidence introduced
at the trial before Judge Lands it can
be held that the defendant did not
have guilty knowledge of its own acts,
then successful prosecution of similar
cases is regarded as impossible.
The government presents its petition
in accordance with ther ule of the court.
The Indictment in the case was for
violation of the Elkins act of February
49,, 1908, making it a crime to accept
concession whereby any property is
transported in Interstate commerce at
less than the published and filed rate.
It was proved at the trivial that the
Chicago & Alton Railway company
transported to East St. Louis, ILL.,, and
st. Louis, Mo-, 1892 carloads Of oil.
In all the dealings between shipper
and carrier each carload was treated as
separate transaction and handled as
a distinct piece of business.
The published and fled rates on this
business were Is cents per hundred
pounds to East st. Louis and 1917
cents to st. Louis. These facts were
admitted.
The Standard Oil company inter-
posed the claim in defense that the Ell
kins act was unconstitutional; that
the tariffs had not been posted in two
public places at the stations, and in
terposed man technical defenses.
On but SIT involved in the
trial up to TIL, he verdict of
guilty are the ruin. 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 reversed by the court of appeals re-
lates to his rulings on evidence and
his charge to the jury with reference
to Ignorance on the part of the Stand
ard Oil Company of the lawful rate as
q defense.