New-York tribune., 1908-07-23

did not read the document merely reierrihs to
IT by number and saying that the case had been
reversed and remanded- There was lunilatlon
among the Standard on lawyers. who declared
that the decision had been expected The gov
ornTnent attorneys went. without comment. to
District Attorney Sims's Office TO study the
document The whole proceedings occupied only
a feN moments News of the verdict spread
rapidly. and Standard on stock jumped IA
points. a rise Of 6S points since Monday morn
ing. To-day's price, S664, is the highest at
which the shares have sold since Judge Landis's
decision
The Court Of Appeals differs with the trial
court on three vital points. holding that Judge
Lands excluded evidence for the Standard on
Company OF Indiana which should have been
admitted 20 show proper intent in the rate the
company paid on of; that he erred in consider
ing each cariot a separate offence, and that IN
imposing the maximum fine for a fret onence
he abused the discretion vested In bis court III
Is strange doctrine. says the opinion. where
eader a million dollar corporation such as the
defendant-the STANDARD OIL Company of lndi-
ana-rnav be fined twenty mine times the amount
of its capital stock in order TO punish de-
nendant not even under indictment. BY this lat
Ter is meant the parent company, the STANDARD
on Company OF New Jersey.
FEATURES OF THE OPINION.
The opinion begins with brief statement OF
the manner in which the case was brought from
the district court to the Court OF Appeals Sec
ton of the interstate commerce act relating to
the publishing and nIing or rates is quoted and
the opinion continues
There are 16s assignments OF error. taking
up sfxty-seren pages Of printed record In view
of the conclusion however, to when we nave
come il Is unnecessary 10 review many OF these
assignments the ones reviewed covering an the
propositions Of law that we deem essential 10
The guidance Of the district court in the event
of a second trial Comprehensively stated the
assignments Of error which we shaH re'ie"
relate:
First-To the view adopted by the trial court
carried our in its rulings on the admission and
exclusion of evidence and embodied In its charge
the jury. that shipper can be convicted OF
accepting a concession from the lawful pup
lished rate. even though il is not shown, as
bearing on the matter OF intent that the shipper
al the time Of accepting such concession knew
what the lawful published rate actually was
Second-To the view adopted by the trial
court thar the number Of offences is the number
Of carloads Of property transported irrespective
OF whether each carload is the whole or the part
only of a single transaction resulting In a ship
Tbird~yEhether in the imposition of the fine
named the trial court abused the discretion
vested in the court
We shall take up these subjects in the order
stated the first being whether the shipper can-
without error. be convicted OF accepting CON CON
cession from lawful published rate. even
though IL is not shown as bearing on the matter
Of intent. that the shipper at the time OF ac-
cepting such concession knew what the law1ui
published rate actually was-a view OF the law
that is embodied in the charge ana carried OUT
in the ruling excluding certain prorered test-
mony, including that Of one Edward bosarons'
x.,o hagnp in absolute charge of the traffic
affairs Of the plaintiff in error during the period
covered by the transaction. offered 10 TESTIFY
that during that period he did not now anything
about an lS-cent rate over the Alton railroad;
that his attention had never been called 10 any
such rate by any person or by the examination
Of any document, and that il was his uhoer,
standing and belief based what he was told
by one Hollands tariff clerk for the Alton rail
road that the rate over the Alton road was s
cents ana that such rate had been filed with
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Hollands who was called by the government.
had previously testified that he had no recollec-
ton OF telling Bogardus that the scent rate "a
commodity rate) had been fled with the Inter
state Commerce Commission But answering on
his voir oire, the jury being excused. Hollands
further stated that he regarded cents per one
hundred pounds as the oil rate between Whiting
and East St. Louis: that he regarded certain
application sheet which covered Whiting at
Chicago rates and the sheet for Chicago. taken
together, as showing q cents commodity rate;
that whenever he spoke of the rate on this com
modify between Whiting and East St Louis he
had in mind those pa Pers.@ and that IL he had
been asked by Bogardus anybody else
whether there was a rate between Whiting and
East St Louis he would have answered that
there and that ii was filed AND that such
rate was cents. which evidence thus proffered
was excluded by the court for the sole reason
that as q matter of fact, the court (not the
sury) found the fact be. the application sheet
containing this Scent commodity rate mad not
beer filed with the Interstate Commerce Com
mission. Had the court found as fact that
the sheet had been filed, or, submitting that
question 10 the jury. had the jury found that
that sheet had been fled, the 6-cent rate
given Bogardus admittedly would have been
the lawful published rate
EXCLUDED EVIDENCE MENTIONED.
The court relates that Bogardus was offered
as witness 10 prove that tariff describing
rate Of ca cents from Whiting TO East St Louis
was issued by the Chicago & Eastern Illinois
Railroad Conlpany a competing line on October
g. 1895. and filed with the Interstate Commerce
Commission two days later; that such tariff sheet
was among the tariff files in possession OF the
plaintiff in error, and that the latter in the
period named. shipped Hereunder large num-
Der Of cars Of petroleum and products at said
rate and that such equivalent to the
shipper Of the rate of six cents over the Alton
owing TO a quarter of a cent terminal charges
al Of which evidence was excluded as was also
the offer Of the tariff sheet itself. produced from
the flies of the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion and an amendment thereto filed in April,
1903
The opinion here quotes Judge Lands's charge
TO the jury. in which the district Judge declared
that TO show that the defendant accepted a con
cession knowingly il not necessary 10 estab-
lish that the defendant had actual knowledge of
the lawful On this phase Of the case the
opinion OF the Court Of Appeals declares:
In this Interpretation Of the interstate COM
Tnerce law, so far IL relates 10 shippers We
cannot concur. The cases cited by the govern
fnent such as those requiring liquor sellers at
their peril 10 know whether the person TO whom
drink is sold is minor or within the prohibition
OF the act or not, are not controlling very
persuasive. The interstate commerce act was
not intended TO promote nor TO restrain trade
and commerce-to secure fair dealings in COM
merce through uniformity, not to put obstruc-
tions in the way OF commerce. Surely the
brings