The star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1908-1909, 1908-07-22

The specific charge against the Stand
ard OIL Company of Indiana WAS that
1t had accepted rebates on shipments
OF oil in carload lots from Whiting,
Ind. TO East St Louha, Ill. over the;
Chicago and Alton Railroad Evfdence
was adduced at the trial showing thak
the company received rates Gne-thfrd
as large as other shippers were obliged
to pay It was contended by the cuun-
gel for the oil company that tine rata,
was not secret, but the fury found deEn-
erwise.
During the trial counsel for the oh,
company refused to give information
called for ny Judge Landis after he
had taken the case under advfsememt-
The court thereupon issued suhpoenas
for the officials of the Standard On
Company of New Jersey, among them
John D. RockefeTler- These officials
appeared in court on July 8, 1907. aud
were personally examined by Judge
Landis.
In Prrt the Decision smyz-
In part the decision says:
-'The error of the traal court in TAX
ing away from the plaintiff in error it's
right to STbrnit TO the jury the whole
question of whether it had knowIedge
of the tarin sheet from which 1T Is said
TO have accepted a concession, and
therefore with tnrent to Violate rhe
| law-whether the rate paid was NOT
paid in the honest belief that IT Was
the lawful rate-5s an error that riaa8
into one of solid substances.
Taking up the question as to wf1ethHr
each shipment constituted a separate
ofrense, by which Interpretation of tfns
Law Judge lands imposed the larEHaa
fine in history of the Standard OIL Cnna-
pany, the court tas this to say.
1.-The gist of the offeuse lis the Gc-
oeptance of q concession frrezpectfve
of whether the pruparty involved wux
carloads, trginIlads or pounds. EEmS
shipper fully and finally accepted a
concession when he has done nothing
more than to agree with the carrfeE
rt.St less than the published and fDe1
rates shall be paid tor the transporter
ton OF his properly
THE number OF o1fenses i'm the pren-
ent case should have been ascertafneiz
in accordance with these prfncfpDaM
The measure adopted by the trial COURT
WIS wholly arhftrsry-had mo basis Inn
any intention or fixed rule GEscovur-
of measuring the number of offsnses
seems to have been given a thoz7ghA.
either by the government or the trtaFl
court"
Courf ON Huge Fine
As TO whether Judge Landfs In fnn-
posing the mon, mental fine abused tbe<
discretion vested in the court. the copy<
opines: 20. M
.sr1,.;a.7,- s..o+e5 .Au r.o.,, 20 49,, 4/<ls
court for imposing this sentencs was
because after conviction and/ bsforo
sentences il was brought out that the
capital stock of the Standard on Com-
pany Of Indiana. the defendant before
the court, wSs principally owned BY tho
New Jersey corporation. a corporation
not before the eourt-ehe trial court
adding Cupon no evidence. however. to
be found in tho record and upon no in
formation specifically referred to) that
in concessions in the character for
which the defendant Is before the courk
had been indicted, tried and convicted
the New Jersey corporation was not
virgin offender
rs a sentence such as this
sound? Can court without abuse OF
judicial discretion wipe out all the
property Ol lne QclNllhs-tlN pSASAS 49,
court, and all the assets to which It's
creditors look In an effort to reach and
punish a party that Is not before the
court-a party = = that is not
even indicted? Can an American Judge
without abuse of judicial discretion
condemn any one who has not had his
day Ia courtS
That to our mind Is strange doc
trine in Anglo-Saxon 5urispruaenee
Can that rightly be done here on no
other basis than the judges personal
belief that the party marked by him