Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-09-10
SEVERAL COMPANIES.

~ - sen ER AL CONF ANlfcS.
Point by point the answer. which WAS
formally placed on record Mt the open
ing of the office of the clerk OF the
court by Col r. w. Stewart, general
attorney in Chicago for the standard
Oil company, takes up The afgul,leil.s
of the petition for rehearing which set
forth alleged errors and particularly
suggested that the upper court had
erred in its understanding of what the
trial Judge really had said concerning
the previous offenses by the Standard
Oil company of Indiana, or the stan
daril Oil company of New Jersey.
In the petition for rehearinE the re-
viewing judges are charged with as
suming that Judge Lands attempted to
try and punish the Standard Oil COM
pany of New Jersey in the original pro-
ceedings which We're against the stan
Ciard Oil company of Indiana. On TINS
point the answer declares it to he a
matter of no consequence whether the
trial court referred to the New Jersey
company or the Indiana company. as
not "a virgin offender
THE REAL POINT.
The real point Is. says the answer,
did the trial court III imposing PUNISH
ment take into consideration the rela-
ton between the Standard OIL company
or New Jersey anu TIE t'''i4''uib
company of Indiana and did it base its
fine upon the wealth of the standard
Oil company of New Jersey and its
ability to pay. instead of upon the
wealth of the standard Oil company of
Indiana, and It's ability to pay.
THE. CONCLUSION,
TO determine this question the stan
dard Oil company attorneys assert that
a few sentences extracted by the gov
eminent counsel from the words or
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 Indiana company
a the ..nomlnal defendant"
The conclusion stated by the answer
is that the enormous fine inflicted up
on the defendant was because of the
ownership of its stock by the stand
ard Oil company of New Jersey ana pc
cause of the financial standing or the
latter corporation is beyond dispute
when the entire opinion of the trlal
court is considered"
A large part of the petition for re-
hearing, the answer asserts, Is q refer
alton of points which no one disputes.
and counsel for the defendant continue
their attack on the petition by declar-
ing that the government attorneys are
mistaken In their Interpretation of the
Armour case. cited in the petition and
in suggesting that the reviewing court
is in conflict with the supreme court.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS."
on the question of knowledge of
the lawful rate on the part of the de-
PENDANT shipper which was one of the
points on which great emphasis was
laid in the petition for re-hearing the
answer asserts that the exceptions of
the governments counsel are based on
a misapprehension of the opinion and
the record in the case. The exclusion
of certain evidence and the question
of intent are discussed in detail in the
answer which asserts that the re-
viewing court was justified in the ruiz
ing which it made.
NO NEED OF REHEARING.
on the point of the number of Of
lenses which the petition for re- hear
ing asserted was obscure in the opinion
of the reviewing court the answer COLI
tends that the governments counsel
has raised cloud where there Is none
and that the ruling of the court clearly
shows that the number of ofienses
was regulated by the settlements and
payments of which there are SO and not
by the carloads numbering 1,462 on
which the fine was predicateH.
In conclusion the answer which was
prepared by Atty. John S. Miller, who
together with MoritZ Rsenthal and All
fred D. Eddy represents the defendant.
asserts that the suggestion of the gov
ernments counsel that the rehearing
be granted in order to certify ques
ton to the federal supreme court is
not proper one because there was no
division OF opinion among the judges
of the reviewing court.