The News-Herald. [volume] (Hillsboro, Highland Co., Ohio) 1886-1973, 1908-07-30
$29,24O,0OO FINE
ANNULLED BY Court
UNITED STATES APPEAL BODY
REV5RsEs FAMOUS DECISION
OF JUDGE LANDS.
Jurist Who Imposed Record Penalty
Is Hauled over the Goals by Men
Who Decide Against His Ruling
Grossoup Gives Opinion.


the court Of appeals lifted the burden
of a $29,240,000 fine from the shoul'
ders of the Standard Oil company OF
Indiana Wednesday and reversed the
judgment of Judge Landis, by which
the heaviest fine ever imposed In a
federal court was saddled upon the oil
company found guilty on 1,462 counts
of accepting rebates from railroads.
Speedy rehearing of the case, which
has attracted widespread attention. is
considered improbable, and the coun-
sci for the oil company contend that
a second conviction cannot be OBJ
tained.
The case was remanded with In
structions that new trial be held
The jurists making up the court Of
appeals are Judges Grosscup, Seaman
and Baker
Judge Grosscup delivered the opin.
ion Of the court, Judges Baker and
Seaman concurring. and in sharp ar
raignment of the conduct of the trial
judge intimated that he may have
presumed to hold himself above the
law.
Judge Lands Called Arbltrary.
The decision declares that the man.
ner in which Judge Lands decided
upon the number of offenses that had
been committed by the defendant COM
pany was arbitrary. It holds that
some other method than the one he
used should have been applied.
Then II passes to the amount Of the
fine, which II declares was sufficient
TO have wiped out many times the
property OF the defendant" The court
holds that the only company on trial
was the Standard Oil Company of In.
diana. II says that this corporation
alone could be punished and that to
attempt to punish its holding corpora.
tion would be to assert that a person
could be punished who was never be-
fore the court or who had never stood
trial. This, the judges say would be
to assert a startling principle of law.
Others Than Commerce Law.
The court declares that the ar.
raignment of the violation of an inter.
state commerce law was to be com.
mended and that the results Of such
1t says, however, that the interstate
commerce law is not the only one in
the United States, and that II is be-
cause there are others that the case
is reversed and remanded.
On the amount of the fine, the upper
court said:
did the court in the fine imposed
abuse its discretion? The defendant
indicted tried and convicted was the
Standard Oil company, a corporation
of Indiana. The capital stock of this
corporation is $l,OOO,0O0 There is
nothing in the record in the way OF
evidence that some Of the assets of
the corporation were in excess of that
amount 1t may therefore be safely
assumed that but for the relation of
the defendant TO another corporation
not before the court, the court would
have measured out punishment on the
basis of the facts just stated
Comment on Punishment.
The judges then commented on the
punishment of the Defendant in such a
large amount and continued, saying:
Briefly stated, the reason of the
trial court for imposing this sentence
was because 1t was brought out on ex-
animation that the capital stock of
the Standard OIL Company Of Indiana
was principally owned by the New
Jersey corporation, a corporation not
before the court The trial court, add
ing that in concessions of the charac
ter for which the defendant before the
court had been indicted, tried and
convicted, the New Jersey corporation
was not virgin offender.
Can an American Judge, without
abuse of judicial discretion, condemn
anyone who has not had his day in
court? That to our minds, is strange
doctrine in Anglo-Saxon jurispru
dence."
President Orders Re.TrlaI.
Oyster Bay. N. Y, July 24.-Presl
dent Roosevelt has directed the at,
torney general to take immediate
steps for the re-trial OF the Standard
Oil case.