The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-09-10

Standard Oil Company Answers
the Governments Petition.
For Rehearing in the Case
Involving the Big Fine.
STICK TO THE POINT.
That the New Jersey Corpora
ton Was Punished
For the Alleged Misdeeds of the
Indiana Company.
STICK TO THE POINT.

| or the government attorneys for a re-
| hearing of the appeal from Judge
Landis' judgment f1ning the company
| $2e,240,0oO for violation of the anti
rebate laws uphold the decision of
Judges Grosscup, Baker and Seaman of
the United States circuit court of ap-
peals, reversing the judgment and lift
ing the burden of the enormous fine
as good law amply justified by the
record in the case
Point by point the answer which
was formally placed on record at the
opening of the office of the clerk of
the court by Colonel r. w. Stewart,
general attorney in Chicago for the
| Standard Oil company takes up the
arguments of the petition for rehear-
ing 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 Standard Oil company of New
Jersey.
In the petition for rehearing the
reviewing judges are charged with as
suming that Judge Lands attempted
to try and punish the Standard Oil
! inal proceedings which were against
the Standard Oil company of Indiana.
| On this point the answer declares it
| to be a matter of no consequence
whether the trial court referred to the
New Jersey company or the Indiana
company as not a Virgin offender"
1.-THE real point is says the an
swer, did the trial court in imposing
punishment take into consideration the
relation between the Standard Oil com
pany of New Jersey and the Standard
Oil company of Indiana and did it base
it's fine upon the wealth of the Stand
ard 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"
To determine this question the Stand
ard Oil company attorneys AIT that
a few sentences extracted by the gov
ernment counsel from the words of
Judge Landis are not sufficient and
quote at length from Judge Landis'
opinion to show that he referred to the
New Jersey corporation as the real de-
fendant and to the Indiana company as
the nominal defendant"
The conclusion stated by the answer
is THAT the enormous fine inflicted
upon the defendant was because of the
ownership of the stock by the Standard
Oil company of New Jersey and because
the financial standing of the latter cor
poration, is beyond dispute when the
sidered.'
A large part of the petition for re-
hearing the answer asserts is
reiteration of points which. no one dis
putes, and counsel for the defendant
continue their attack on the petition
by declaring that the government at
torneys are mistaken in their inter-
probation of the Armour case, cited in
the petition and in suggesting that the
reviewing court is in conflict with the
supreme court
On the question of knowledge of the
lawful rate on the part of the de-
fendant shipper which was one of the
points on which great emphasis was
laid in the petition for rehearing the
answer asserts that the expectations 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 interest are discussed in detail in
the answer which asserts that the re-
viewing court was justified in the rul-
ing which it made.
On the point of the number of Of
fenses which the petition for rehear-
ing asserted was obscure in the opin-
ion of the reviewing court the answer
contends that the governments coun-
sci has raised a cloud where there is
none and that the ruling of the court
clearly shows that the number of Of
fenses was regulated by the settle
were SO and not by the carloads num-
bering 1,462 on which the fine was
predicateG.
In conclusion the answer which was
prepared by Attorney John S. Miller,
who together with MoritZ Rosentha1
and Alfred D. Eddy represents the de-
fendant, asserts that the suggestion of
the government counsel that the re-
hearing be granted in order to certify
a question to the federal supreme
court is not a proper one because there
was no division of opinion among the
Judges of the reviewing court.
Copies of the answer of the Standard
Oil company were served later in the
'day on the chief clerk in the office Of
District Attorney Sims. Under the
rules of federal judicial procedure. the
government attorneys have the right
to file a reply to the answer to their
petition if they discover in it new mat
ter which they consider needs a re-
joinder.
The answer will be presented to
Judges Grosscup, Baker and Seaman
of the United States circuit court of
appeals and will probably be consid-
cred at the October term of court.
which opens October 6.
1t is not usual for the court to hear
argument on a petition for rehearing
cases being decided on petition and
answer without oral argument, unless
otherwise ordered by the court.
A request to rehear argument from
either side could under the rules be
honored by the court. First Assistant
District Attorney James H. Wilkerson
said today:
II am not in a position to say what
course the government will pursue Mr..
Sims has not returned from his vaca-
ton and whether we reply to the an
swer or ask for oral argument will de-