The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-07-22
1t was the lawful rate-is an error that
rises into one of solid substance"
As to Number of Onenses.

it was the lawful rate-is an error that
rises into one of solid substance
As to Number of Onenses.
Taking up the question as to wheth-
er each shipment constituted a separ-
ate offense by which Interpretation of
the law, Judge Landis imposed the
largest fire in history on the Standard
OH company, the court has this to say:
The gist of the offense is the ac-
ceptance OF concession irrespective of
whether the property involved was car
ioads' train loads or pounds. Has
shipper fully and finally accepted a
concession when he has done nothing
more than to agree with the carrier
that less than the published and filed
rates shall be paid for the transporta-
ton OF his property?. Is 1t not neces-
sary that the transaction be closed by
actual payment Of the lower rate: In
the rebate the shipper paid in the first
instance the full rate to the carrier
and afterwards received back part.
Manifestly the offense of accepting a
rebate has not been committed until
the shipper has taken back a part of
the first money whereby his property
has been transported at less than the
lawful rate. .--.,.-
Proof that he agreed to accept a re-
turn of part of the full rate-stop-
ping there-would not support an in
dictment for accepting a rebate. Such
an agreement Is not binding; and at
any time before its completion the
shipper may represent and insist upon
the carrier keeping the whole amount.
The concession differs from the rebate
only in that concession the shipper in
stead OF paying the full rate and re-
ceiving back part merely settles for
the difference. The result is the same
the property is transported for the
same amount less than the lawful rate.
And there is no basis in the statutes
for holding that in the case of accept
ing concession the transaction is
consummated and the door of repent
ance is closed at any moment earlier
than in the case of accepting a rebate.
So proof that a shipper has agreed to
accept concession stopping there will
not support an indictment for accept
ing a concession until the intended
wrong becomes an accomplished fact.
Lower Court Was Arbitrary.
THE number of offenses in the pres
ent case should have been ascertained
in accordance with these principles.
The measure adopted by the trial court
was wholly arbitrary-had no basis in
any intention or fixed rule discoverable
in the statutes. And no other way of
measuring the number of offenses
seems to have been given a thought
either by the government or by the
trial court
AS to whether Judge Lands in i'm
posing the monumental fine abused the
ulSCTcllOH vested III the court, the court
opines:
Briefly stated the reason of the
trial court for imposing this sentence
was because after conviction and be-
fore sentence it was brought out that
the capital stock of the Standard Oil
company of Indiana, the defendant
company was principally owned by the
New Jersey corporation, a corporation
not before the court, the trial court
adding: Upon no evidence. however.
to be found in the record and upon no
information specifically referred to,
for which the defendant. before the
court had been indicted. tried and con-
victed the New Jersey corporation was
not virgin offender.
rs sentence such as this sound?
Can a court without abuse of judicial
discretion wipe out all the property of
defendant before the court and all the
assets to which its creditors lay claim
in an effort to reach and punish ii
party that it is not before the court?
This company is not even indicted.
Can an American Judge without abuse
of judicial discretion condemn any
one who has not had his day in court?
THAT to our mind Is strange doc
trine in Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence!
| Can that rightfully be done here on no
other basis than the judges personal
! belief that the party marked by him
| If so it is because the man who hap
pens to be the judge is above the law"
History of the Case.
| The decision handed down today by
the United States court OF appeals was
! on the appeal of the Standard OH
rendered April Is, 1907, by which the
| company was found guilty of accepting
| rebates and was later fined by Judge
Lands of the United States district
court s2e,24o.Oo0. the maximum un-
| der the counts of the indictment.
! The specific charge against the COM
nany was that it had accepted rebates
| on shipments of oil In carload lots
| from Whiting, Ind, to East st. Louis,
| Ill. over the Chicago & Alton rail-
road evidence was adduced at the
! trial showing that the company re-
| ceiyed rates one-third as large as
other shippers were obliged to pay. 1t
was contended by the counsel for the
oil company that the rate was not
secret, but the jury found otherwise.
| During the trial counsel for the oil
! company refused to give information
called for by Judge Lands after he
i had taken the case under advfsement.
The court thereupon issued subpoenas
| for the officials of the Standard Oil
| company of America, among them
John d. Rockefeller. These officials
| appeared in court on July 6, 1907. and
were personally examined by Judge
| Lands.
Judge Lands after the higher courts
decision had been announced declared
| he had no comment to make.
| News of the decision spread like a
prairie fire through the federal build
| ing. reaching the office of United States
Attorney Edward Sims with unwelcome
| sneed. He held a hurried conference
| with his assistants who had aided him
| in the prosecution before the district
| court after which he said:
| "An can say now is that what has
happened was not expected However
! we shall make the best of 1t. Undoubt-
| edly there will be an early retrial."
| Iobn Miller Alfred D. Eddy Nor