Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-08-22
GOVERNMENT BELIEVES THAT
ALL FUTURE PROSECUTION
UNDER ANTITRUST LAWS DE-
PEND ON SUSTAINING OIL FINE
BONAPARTE MAKES
APPEARANCE IN CASE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PART
IN PREPARING PETITION TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS.

Chicago, Aug. 21-The government
petition for rehearing by the United
States court of appeals of the case
against the Standard Oil company Of
Indiana was filed today and repre-
sents, 1T Is authoritatively stated, the
administrators attempt to save the
Elkins act and interstate commerce
law from becoming futile. The filing
of the petition marked the first ap-
pearance Of Attorney General Bona
parte In the case.
The Bearing on Future Cases.
Although 1t is not specifically stated
In the petition 1t was agreed By coun-
sci for the government following the
reversal by the appellate court OF
Judge Landis's decision in which the
$29 100000 fine was imposed, that if
the Interpretation law given by Judge
Grosscup, Seaman, and Baker Is al
lowed to stand the Successful prosecu-
ton of rebate cases against corpora
| tfpns will be impossible In the futare.
The governments position in the
case Is set forth in the following
synopsis:
Synopsis of Petition.
| The government presents its petit
tion in accordance with the rule of the
court.
The Indictment in the case was for
a violation of the Elkins Act of Febru-
ary 10. 1903, making it crime to ac-
cept concession whereby any prop
| erty is transported in Interstate COM
merce at less than the published and
filed rate.
1t was proved at the trial that the
/ &r M
| transported to East st. Louis Illinois
and st. Louis, Missouri 1892 carloads
of oil.
/ In all the dealings between shipper
and carrier each carload was treated
as distinct transaction and handled
as distinct piece of business.
The published and filed rates on this
business were eighteen cents per ono
hundred pounds to East st. Louis and
nineteen and a half cents to st. Louis.
4 The Standard Oil company actually
settled on the basis of six cents to
East ST. Louis and seven and a half
cents to ST. Louis.
1 These facts were admitted.
The Standard Oil company interpos-
ed the claim in defense that the Elkins
Act was unconstitutional; that the tar
iffs had not been posted in two public
places at the stations, and interposed
many technical defenses.
ii ofl Dul a. Single point involved IN CnS
trial up to the return of the verdict of
guilty are the rulings Of the trial
judge criticized by the court of ap-
,peals. In all other particulars his rul-
ings are sustained.
Appeal Courts Ruling Criticised.
The point on which the trial judge is
reversed by the court of appeals relates
to his rulings on evidence ahd his
charge to the jury with reference to
4 0 m ma ri pf 40 10 rT
Oil company Of the lawful rate as a
, defense.
The court Of appeals in it's opinion
has not correctly stated how the judge
ruled on this subject.
1t is said in the opinion that he re-
fused to admit evidence to the effect
!, that the Standard Oil company did not
know what the lawful rate was. The
fact is, and the record so shows. that
all evidence tending to show ignorance
| on the part of the Standard Oil COM
pany was admitted for the considera-
: tion of the jury.
This evidence was largely that o1
:, the traffic manager of the Standard
! OIL company, Bogardus, who swore tc
j., a conversation with Hollands, the rate
e clerk of the Alton, in which he sait
q Hollands told him that the rate hat
!, been filed. The government met this
testimony by a great array of circum-
. and the jury found in favor of the gov
9 ernment.
The trial Judge ruled that ignorance
on the part of a shipper of what the
lawful rate was could be interposed az
a defense, but that it would not con.
stitute defense If it appeared thai
the ignorance was the result of neglec
on the part of the shipper or of wilfu
n failure on the part of the shipper tx
resort to the sources of information
which were available.
The government contends that thi
is the correct construction of the sta
a tute on this subject.
] The court of appeals lays down tn,
v rule that 1t is necessary for the gov
q ernment to show beyond reasonable
= doubt, as part of its case that thu
= shipper actually knew what the law
L full published and field rate was.
g Commerce Act in Peril.
a The government contends that thi
it Is an impossible rule; that it Is con
e trary to the purpose of the Elkins Act
- that it is contrary to the general ruiz
= applicable In criminal cases; that pu