Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-11-10
GOVERNMENT
PETITION DENIED.
---7- = ------7-
For Rehearing in Case Of Stand
ard Oil Company for Al
legged Rebating.
---.-----------------
MAY GO TO SUPREME COURT.
AuthoritativeIy Stated Attempt
Will be Made to Take it
Up on Certiorari.
II Appellate Court Decision stands
Would Undo Everything Done by
ROOSEVELT Administration.

chicago, Nov. 1o.-The governments
petition for q re-hearing of the case
in which the United States circuit5courr
Of appeals reversed the trial court IN
tining the Standard Oil company Of
Indiana 500, 900 for alleged rebatns,
was denied in the court of appeals to-
day. 1t is authoritatively stated that
bring the whole matter before the SUI
prcnle court on a writ Of certiorari
The government in its petition for Il
re-hearing intimated that if the opin7
ion Of the judges OF the appellate court
-Grosscup, Seaman and Baker--were
allowed to stand it would nullify near
" every shred OF rate refprmatory
having been accomplished by the
Roosevelt administration. In summing
up disposition, counsel for the govern
entssaid that the opinion of the court
of appeals as it stood enormously
stated material portions of the record:
did Injustice to the trial judge G<an-s
disl; left doubtful, iii a new trial, the
rule of law to be applied both as to
knowledge. on the part of shipper that
he was accepting an Illegally low rate.
did not make it clear what was to con-
stitute one nffense--a train load, a. car
load ,or a whole series of shipments,
for which but one settlement Of freight
charges had becn made. It WnE further
alleged that the language or the appel
late Judges appeared to be in conflict
with the language of the supreme court
and what the language used BY the pre-
siding judge, Judge Grosscup, in a
previous similar case. The situation
closed with a statement that If the
opinion Of the court of appeals We're
permitted to stand unmodified IL would
tend to encourage disobedicnce to tine
law; to impede the enforcement Of
falntatory statutes and largely to de-
feat their purpose
COURTS POSITION.
In overruling the petition the court
says -
The petition for a re-hearing ques-
tons the correctness Of the text of
that portion of the opinion that re-
lates to the trial Judges statement, in
passing sentence, that he was unable
70 indulge the presumption that in This 4
case the defendant was convicted Of
Its virgin offense,' the point of the
petition being, that in the use of the
word defendant in connection with
red to the Standard Oil company of
Indiana, and not to the Standard Oil
company of New Jersey.
Inc trial court in passing sentence
expressly stated that the Standard Oil
company of Indiana was but the nom
tnal defendant. the Standard Oil com,
pany of New Jersey, being the real
defendant and every word, almost, Of
the trial court, in arriving at It's con-
clnsion respecting the sentence, related
to the Standard Oil company of New
Jersey and not to the Standard Oil
OF Indiana, including the state
hent that the revenues of the Offend
or and the character of the crime, show
Ell that they had peculiar relation
TO each other--the revenues referred
opFlously-4O per cent on 100000
no revenues of the Standard Oil
company of Indiana. being in the re-
cord a all. And5counsel for the gov 4
eminent plant their Justification of the
me upon the showing of the revenues
not OF the Standard Oil company OF
Indiana, but Of the Standard Oil com
pany of New Jersey. But as a sug-
Gestion that that line j., the text Of \
me opinion be changed, the suggestion
VIII be accepted, and the opinion so 4
supplied that while the language used
70 express the point is changed the
substance Of the principal involved will
oe more clearly brought out
ne petition for q re-hearing also
Questions Ithe$correctness of the text of
mat portion of the opinion in which,
oea!ing with the question whether q
shipper is guilty OF accepting a. con-
cession. even though it is shown that
the shipper at the time oe accepting
such concession, did not know what
the lawfully published rate actually
was, the view taken by the trial court
IS said to be a view of the law that is.
embodied in the charge. and carried
out in the rulings, excluding certain
preferred testimony, including that of
one Edward Bogardus-the point of the
ssomplaint being that the testimony or a
Btosardus, as to whether he knew or 4
ga not know of an IS cent rate over
the Alton road was not excluded.
Now as a4matter as to what piysc-t
h!iys Went into the record, Bogardus'
testimony was admitted and went to
The jury on the Issue adopted by the
court whether he had made 'dligent
elideavor' to ascertain the rate--an Is
sue wholly different fr~m the one upon
which it was offered. viz: Whether or 4
not defendant had knowledge OF what
nor lawfully established rate was On
me latter issue, the testimony of Be-
Z sardus was as effectually excluded by
.tle charge to the jury as if it had been
physically expunged from the record.
nhchDI hAnh IafHInCMT