The Detroit times., 1908-07-22
BIG STANDARD OIL
FINE SET ASIDE

BIG STANDARD OIL
FINE SET ASIDE
(Continued from First paxsD
Ing federal judges who talk publicly
on matters which might come under
their judicial attention.
Rockefeller's Lawyer Present.
When the three judges took their
seats on the bench the court room was
crowded to the doors John 8. Miller,
Rockefeller's $4,000 lawyer, was pres.
ent TO represent the oil trust He was
accompanied by Attorney Moritz Ros-
enthal and several other Standard OIL
lawyers Dist. Atty. Edward M. Sims
appeared for the government.
All that occurred In court was the
reading OF the very last paragraph OF
the decision. Judge Grosscup read II
as follows
The Judgment Of the district
court Is reversed and the case re-
manded with instructions to grant
a new trial. and proceed further
In accordance with this opinion.
That was all and court adjourned.
Immediately Dist. Atty. Sims held
conference with Assistant James VIII
kerson and decided to rush the case
to another trial In the fall.
1--WE cannot appeal the case" said
Mr.. Sims, but after a careful read
ing OF the decision we find We can get
new trial at once. That Is what we
will do"
Not only did the upper court find
fault with Judge Lands method or
fining the trust, but IL criticised him
for his manner OF deciding the num-
Der Of counts left In the Indictment
upon which q trial should be held.
The government contended that each
count was an offense. The upper
court held otherwise.
The Crack at Judge Lands.
The arraignment of Judge Lands
begins with the taking up OF that mat
ter Here is what the court said:
The number Of offenses in the pres
ent case should have been ascertained
In accordance with these principles
(the transaction of granting rebate,
as a transaction, must be entirely con-
summated before II is an offense).
The measure adopted by the trial
court was wholly arbitrary-had no
basis I'm any intention. or fixed rule
discoverable In the statute. And no
other way OF measuring the number OF
offenses seems to have been given a
thought either by the government or
tn trial court"
The court then goes into the fining
Of the trust by Judge lands. In this
came the words which are taken as
direct criticism OF one Of the most
remarkable decisions ever rendered
by district Judge.
Did the Court Abuse Olscretlon7
This brings us, then. to the last
question. the decision reads. did
the court, in the fine imposed, abuse
its discretion?
Briefly stated. the reason of the
trial court for imposing this sentence
was because, after conviction and be-
fore sentence, II was brought out, on
an examination OF some Of the officers
and stockholders of the Standard OIL
Co.. OF New Jersey. that the capital
stock OF the Indiana corporation. tho
defendant before the court, was prin-
cipally owned by the New Jersey cor
poration, 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- that la con-
cessions OF the character for which
the defendant before the court had
been indicted, tried and convicted, the
New Jersy corporation was not vir-
gin offender.
lis a sentence such as this. based on
reasoning such as that, sound? Pas
ing over the fact that no word OF evi.
dence or information supporting the
trial courts comment Is 10 be found
In the record, would the comment.
IL duly proven. justify sentence such
as this one that overwise would not
have been imposed? Can a court,
without abuse OF judicial discretion.
wipe out all the property ofAdefendant
before the court, and all the\assets to
which its creditors look. In an EFFORT
10 reach and punish a party that is
not before the court--a party that has
not been convicted. has not been tried.
had not been indicted even? Can an
American Judge. without abuse OF judi
cial discretion. condemn any one who
has not had his day in court?
That. TO our mind, is strange doc.
trine In Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence.
No monarch, no parliament. no tribu-
nal Of Western Europe. for centuries.
has pretended to have the right TO
punish. except after due trial under all
forms OF the law. Can that rightfully
be done here. ON no other basis than
the judges personal belief that the
party marked by him for punishment
deserves punishment II SO. II Is be-
cause the man who happens TO be the
Judge Is above the law"