Kingsbury County independent. (DeSmet, Kingsbury County, S.D.) 1894-1929, 1908-07-31
$~29,OOO,OOO fine
AGAINST STANDARD
OIL KNOCKED OUT
Decision of Chicago Judge is
Reversed and Case Remand
ed to Lower Tribunal.

versed the decision of Judge Lam
dis, of the United States district
court, in the case of the Standard
Oil company, of Indiana, in which
Judge Lands inflicted a fine of
$29, a 900 upon the company,
and remanded it to a lower court
for new trial.
The decision handed down today by
the United States court of appeals was
on an appeal made by the Standard
Oil company, of Indiana, from the ver-
dict rendered April Is. 1907, by which
the company vas found guilty OF ac-
cepting rebates and was later fined by
Judge Lands, of the United States dis
trict court. $29, 240. 900, the maximum
under the counts of the indictment.
The Charge.
The specific charge against the STAN
dard was tina 1t had accepted rebates
on shipments of oil in carload lots from
Whiting. Ind. to East st. Louis. ILL.,,
over the Alton railroad. The evidence
adduced at the trial showed the COM
parry had received rates one-third as
large as other shippers were obliged to
pay.
1t was contended by counsel for the
oil company that the rate was not Sc
cret, but the jury found otherwise.
John D. in Court.
During the trial counsel for the com
pany refused to give information called
for by Judge Lands after he had taken
the case under advisement. The court
thereupon issued subpoenas for officials
OF the Standard OH company, of New
Jersey, among them John d. Rookie
Teller. These officials appeared In court
r1lu a 1907 and Uarn aarcnrrn1lU avs ~
ined by Judge Lands. 1t developed
from questions put by the our that
the Indiana corporation, against which
the indictments had been returned, is
owned by the Standard Oil company, OF
New Jersey, the earnings of which dur
ing three years. in which occurred the
transactions covered by ane Indictments
amounted to nearly $500. 900, 600. and that
dividends averaging 40 per cent per an
mum were paid during that time.
Moved for New Trial.
Judge Lands, after keeping the case
under advisement for several weeks,
passed sentence on the Standard Oil
company. Of Indiana, on August 3, 1907.
The company entered a motion for a
new trial, which was refused. 1t then
appealed from the decision of the Jury
in the district court or the ground thar
the verdict was not based upon facts.
and was unjustifiable; that the fine i'm
posed by Judge Lands was excessive.
1T was on this appeal that the de-
cision today was handed down. The
decision of the three appellate Judges
was unanimous.
Opinion in Part.
Judge Grosscup wrote the opinion.
which is very lengthy. In part ii says
There are 169 assignments OF errors,
taking up 81 pages of printed record.
In view of the conclusion. however, to
which we have come, 1t is unnecessary
to review many of these assignments,
the ones reviewed covering all the prop
ositions of law that we deem essential
TO the guidance Of the district court in
the event of a second trial.
"Comprehensively stated the assign
ments of error which we shall review
relate:
First. to the view adopted by the
trial court, carried out In it's rulings on
the admission inc exclusion of EVIL
dence. embodied in it's charge. to
the jury. that a shipper can be con-
yicted of accepting a concession from
the lawful published rate even though |
II Is no shown as bearing on the mat
ter intent, that the shipper, at the time
or accepting such concessions, knows
what h lawful published rate actually
was.
Secondly, to the view adopted by the
trial court that the number of offenses
is the number of carloads OF property
transported, irrespective of whether
each carload is the whole or a part only
OF a single transaction resulting In a
shipment.
Thirdly, whether in the imposition
the fine named the trial court abused
the discretion used in court"
Where Judge Erred.
The opinion hen exhaustively re-
views each subject n holds that
Judge Lands erred In excluding GER
witnesses and exhibits of tariff
sheets and In charging the jury tina to
show that the defendant accepted the
knowingly 1t was not neces-
sary to establish that the defendant
had actual knowledge OF the lawful
the opinion holding that the in
commerce act did not contem-
plate that the shippers should be guilty
or having accepted the concession
merely because they took the word of
the carrier or his agent as to what the
was.
Taking up the question as to whether
each shipment constituted a separate
offense by which Interpretation of the
law Judge Lands imposed the largest
fine I'm history on the Standard Oil
company, the court has this to say:
The gist OF the offense is the ac-
ceptance of the concession i~rrespec-
tive of whether the shipment involved
carloads, trainloads or pounds. Has
the shipper fully and finally accepted
the concession when he has done moth
ing more than agree with the carrier
hat less than published and filed rates
shall b. paid for the transportation
If his property? Is 1t not necessary
hat the transaction be closed by ac-
payment OF the lower rate? In
he rebate the shippers paid In the
1rst instance the full rate to the car
Ter and afterwards received back a
oart. Manifestly the offense of accept
ng the rebate has not been committed
Until the shipper has taken back part
# the first n whereby his prop
.rty has been transported at less than
he lawful rate. The proof that he
to accept the return of part OF
he full rate-stopping there-would
lot support the indictment for accept
the rebate.
Such an agreement Is not binding
md at any time before its complete