Weekly Watertown leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1908-1909, 1908-09-11
STANDARD OIL
FIGHTS APPEAL
FOR REHEARING
COUNSEL UPHOLD DECISION RE.
VERSING LANDIS' FINE OF
S29, 240,o 900.
CLAIM ONLY SO 0FFENSES
Lay Stress Upon Alleged Trial of New
Jersey Company Instead of Branch
IN Indiana
SAY POSITION is NOT PROPER.

CHICAGO, Ill. Sept 1O-Counsel
for the Standard Oil company of In
diana in an answer filed today to the
petition Of the government attorneys
for rchearing Of the appeal from Judge
lands Judgment filming the company
$29,24O,OOO for violations of the anti
rebate laws, uphold the decision of
Judges Gr0sscup. Baker and Seaman of
the United States circuit court of ap
peals. reversing the judgment and limit
ing the burden Of the enormous fine. as
good law, amply justified by the record
in the case
Point by point the answer which was
formally placed on record at the opening
of the office Of the clerk Of the court by
t0l. X. w Stewart, general attorney in
thlcagO for the Standard Oil company,
takes up the arguments of the petition
Tor rchearing which set forth alleged
errors and particularly suggested that
The upper court had erred in it's under
standing of what the trial Judge really
had said concerning the previous aliens as
by the Standard Oil company of In
dlana or the Standard Oil company Of
New Jersey.
Punished Wrong Company.
In the petition for rchcaring, the re-
viewing judges are charged with assum-
ing that Judge Lands attempted to try
and punish the Standard Oil company
Of New Jersey i'll the original proceed
lngS which were against the Standard
Oil company Of Indiana. On this point
the answer declares it to be matter of
no consequence whether the trial court
referred to the New Jersey company or
The Indiana company as not Il virgin
offender"
'tt.
Did the trial court in imposing punish
Inent, take into consideration the relation
between the Standard Oil company of
New Jersey and the Standard Oil com
pany of Indiana and did it base it's fine
upon the wealth of the Standard Oil
company of New Jersey and it's ability
to pay, instead of upon The wealth of the
Standard Oil company Of Indiana and
its ability to pay"
Judge Lands Criticised
To determine this questions, the Stand
ara on attorneys assert that q few sen
fences extracted by the government coun-
sci from the words of Judge Lands are
not sufficient and quote at length from
Judge Lands opinion to show that he
referred to the New Jersey corporation
as the real defendant and to the Indi-
ana company as the nominal defend
ant
The conclusion stated by the answer is
that the enormous fine inflicted upon
the defendant was because of the owner
ship of its stock by the Standard Oil
company of New Jersey, and because of
the financial standing Of the latter cor
poratiOn, Is beyond dispute when the en-
tire opinion of the trial court is consd-
cred"
\ large part of the petition for re-
hearing, the answer asserts, is a reiter-
alton of points which no one disputes
and counsel for the defendant continue
their attack on the petition by decla ring
that the government attorneys are mis-
taken in their Interpretation of the Ar
mour case cited i'll the petition and in
suggesting that the reviewing court is i'll
conflict with the supreme court.
Misapprehension of Record
On the question of knowledge of the
lawful rate on the part of the defendant
shipper, which was one of the points Oh
which great emphasis was laid in the
petition for rehearing, the answer asserts
that the exceptions of the governments
counsel are based on Il miSapprehenSiOn
of the opinion and the record in the case.
The exclusion of certain evidepce and
the question of intent are discussed in
detail i'll the answer which asserts that
the reviewing court was justified in the
ruling which it made
On the point of the number of of
lenses, WHICH me petition Tor renear-
ing asserted was obSCured i'll the opin-
ion Of the reviewing court, the answer
contends that the governments counsel
has raised a cloud where there is none
and that the ruling Of the court clearly
shows that the number of offeuses was
regulated by the settlements and pay
ments of which there were thirty-six and
not by the carloads numbering 1462 On
which the fine was predicted.
Judges Not Divided
In conclusion, the answer which was
prepared by Attorney John S. Miller
who. together with Moritz Rosenthal and
Alfred ID. Eddy represents the defend
ant asserts that the suggestion of the
government counsel that the rehearing
be granted in order to certify a uues-
ton to the federal supreme court is not
a proper one because there was no di-
vision of opinion among the judges of
the reviewing court.