Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-08-22
favontiHm which exiatad prior

l
passage.
| The government insists that before
| laying down this harsh rule and prac-
tically multiplying the law the court OF
appeals should certify in accordance
with the statute this question to the
supreme court for it's decision that
no court short of the supreme court
| should undertake practically to wipe
the Interstate Commerce Act from the
statutes.
The government cantends that each
shipment is the basis of a distinct Of
tense and that in this case each car
| load was a separate shipment.
| The government takes issue with the
circuit court Of appeals as to it's prop
osftion that a defendant cannot be
fined more than the value of the prop
erty which he possesses and states
that this rule is an innovation m
| criminal law and if applied would de-
stroy the enforcement of most statutes.
The government claims that the
facts before the court Of appeals justify
the imposition of the penalty inflicted
by the trial judge.
1t appears from the record in the cir
cult court of appeals that the net pro-
fit of the business OF the Standard Oil
company of Indiana, the corporation
that Judge Lands fined, for the years
during which the violations of the law
for which. it was convicted We're com
mitted and including the year in
which it was indicted amounted to
$50, 5S3,20S.80.
On this point the netition states:
I'VE respectfully call the attention
of the court to the statement of the
Standard OIL company of Indiana on
file In this case, referred to by the
court in its opinion and treated as
proper for consideration IN determln-
ling whether or not the penalty was
excessive"
That statement shows, with refer
ence to the assets and liabilities and
profits of the Standard OIL company
OF Indiana, the following:
STANDARD Oil Co. 2)lndiana).
Year. Gross Assets. Liabilities. Profits
16,154,4os.1s 5,oo4,ss1.o5 4,1s5,75o,54
1900
1s,o77,o1s.24 2,7s5,ss5.os 1881, 571.o4
1901
1s,4a5,21s.71 2s6s,41Io1 5,s7e,s4s55
1902
1s,7s4.s7s.s4 s,soe,52o.s4 7,515.soseo
. 21,277,s1s.7o 45s5, aoo.12., s,75s,41o.2S
1904
: 2o,os77oos4 s,o52,4e7.S2 ,7s2,oss.24
so,74s,ss1.s7 2,4a5,s57:62 6,521,s7s,5a
, 1906
27,5O2,0Se.s6. 3,17S,152.7e 1O,516,Os2.75'
The punishment therefore Is no
7 more severe than that is inflicted upon
a letter carrier who steals a letter and
is sent to the penitentiary for three
years thereby depriving him of his
earning capacity for that time 1t is
not nearly so severe as the minimum
penalty of five years in the peniteni-
tary imposed upon banker who
misappies the funds of his bank.
The government claims that on ac-
count Of the size of the fine alone,
there is no necessity for retrial of
the case; that the circuit court of APP
peals may. itself, name the fine which
: should be imposed and calls upon the
court to do so in case it adheres to
the view that Judge Lands abused his
discretion in imposing so large a fine.
The Petitions Conclusion.
The petition concludes
"It is therefore respectfully subit-
ted:
t THAT the opinion of this court is
D based upon misconception of the
E record with reference to the rulings Of
/ the trial judge as to the admission Of
, evidence tending to show want Of
v knowledge, and with reference to his
f construction of the statute on that
{ subject and the theory on which the
case was tried; that the evidence of
, Bogardus which it Is claimed showed
t want of. knowledge was admitted, that
it was overcome, however by the facts
and circumstances Of the case, and
! that the evidence as an entirety was
t sufficient to show actual knowledge or
q what in law was its equivalent;
) That the Interpretation of the sta
{ tute by this court imposing no duty on
the shipper and permitting defense Of
Ignorance to be made without regard
to the negligence OF the shipper. is
contrary to the language of the statute
! and to its purpose, and seriously i'm
, pairs the efficiency of the act;
J That the ruling stated in the opinion
, as to the basis for determining the
) number of offenses involves an errone-
: Gus construction Of the statute and
;, fails to take into consideration that
, the thing which is prohibited by the
: act is the transportation of property
j at the unlawful rate;
: That the criticism Of the trial
3 judge for abuse of discretion rests up