The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-11-24
APPEALS FOR WRIT
BONAPARTE. ARGUES STANDARD
 OIL CASE.
Petition Filed With Supreme Court To Take Up The S29.0OOs0O0 Fine Set Aside By Court Of
 Appeals.

-
 Washington, Nov. 33.--The wording of the governments petition for a writ of certiorari inS the s29.o0o.00o Standard Oil case, which today was filed in the Supreme Court of the Uni- ted States, indicates that the depart ment Of justice Is fully aware of the courts practice of denying ninety per cent of such petitions.
 Tha court grants these petitions on ly when constitutional questions are involved and the Attorney 0eneral makes strong effort to have 1t appear that the present case falls within the category. Much of the body Of the petition is devoted to adducing req sons why the court should review the controversy.
 Four reasons for the issuance of the writ are given as follows:
 'First. 1t is highly desirable in the public interest and to promote justice in the further prosecution and nnai detarfnination of this particular casc' considered in and by itself.
 ''Second. It is indispensable for the instruction and advice of the govern ment in the intelligent administration and enforcement of the laws inVoiVea'
 Third. It is necessary TOT tns control and guidance of the Federai courts in disposing of similar cases now actually pending or likely 70 arise in the near future.
 "Fourth. The issue of the writ IS necessary also that the business com munity and the people at large may ba informed and advised as to the meaning of the law by the judgment of this court.
 whether" says the petition in urg- ing the granting of the writ, the gov
 ala In fta nV- tentions, we respectfully but very earnestIy urge that the court should issue the writ. The case is of the first consequence. The principles de- cided control the entire meaning and purposes of the law and impart tne underlying policy of Congress. IT, TOT example. it is necessary that the gov ernment should prove 2 knowledge by the shipper of the lawful rate, tne law will be altogether deprived Of ef- feet against the very shippers who violate it. T. is extremely important that the law should be determined and expounded now, at this stage of the present case by this court"
 Attorney General Bonaparte calls attention to the fact that the certtfi- cate process and the certiqrart pro- ceedings are the two methods by which cases can be brought from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. the former on the initiative of the lower and the latter of the higher court.
 "Jt he said, will not be seriously contended that because this is a crim- inal case the Court of Appeals would have had-no right to certify any ques- ton raised upon this record" and the contention is made that if the case could be properly transferred from the lower court to the higher court by means of certificatlon. 1t can just as properly be brought up by means of a writ from the higher court. On this point the Attorney General says;
 "It may fairly be argued that the provision whereby this court may is- sue certiorari was inserted in the statute because Congress did not pro nose to leave 1t wholly within the discretion of a Circuit Court of Ap- heals to determine whether the ques- tions before it were sufficiently doubt full and sufficiently important to be reviewed by this court.
 The Attorney General also takes the position that the Supreme Court is vested by law with authority to order any case, of which a Circuit Court of | Appeals has final jurisdiction. to be brought up by certiorari and to deter mine it. in the same manner as if it had been taken up on appeal or writ l of error by the defendant.
 ! Tt cannot" he says, "be true that | the auth ority of this court to exercise l Jurisdiction in the interest of the | whole people in such a case as this may be cut off by a convicted defen- dants choice of the forum inferiorem.' Mir. Bonaparte takes cognizance .oi | the fact that the court of appeals | failed to consider many of the gov ] ernment's assignments on error and f 1 Is urged that this failure meant tha Judge Landis had not committed CT
 TOTS and that therefore the appellat,