Albuquerque citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1907-1909, 1908-09-10
STANDARD OIL REPLIES
TO THE GOVERNMENT
PETITION
Claims There Is Nothing Of
Record In the Case to Show
Oil Co. Cot Lower Rate.
SAYS COURT FINED
The WRONG COMP ANY
Standard Oil Company of New
Jersey Was Not on Trial but
Judge Lands Took it Into
Consideration in His
Decision.

Chicago, Sept. 10.-Attorneys for
the Standard Oil company of Indiana
this morning filed in the United
States court of appeals for the Sew
enth circuit the reply to the petition
for rehearing filed by the government
In iss suit against the STANDARD. The
rehearing is asked by the government
that the suit may be properly certified
to the supreme court of the United
States for final decision regarding the
collection of the S29,O0O,OOO fine as
sessed by Judge Lands against the
company for accepting rebates.
The reply OF the Standard was filed
by John 5. Miller, Morris Rosenthal
and Alfred D. Eddy, who will repre-
sent the company, opposing Attorney
General Bonaparte, Frank b. Kellogg
and a staff of government attorneys. ).
The reply is contained in an ex-
tensive brief which goes fully into the
reversal of Judge Lands decision by
the appellate court. 1t points out that
there Is nothing of inequality OF rates
as between different shippers. or OF
favoritism or preference to the de-
-
its favor in the matter Of rates,
proved in the governments suit
against the Standard company, and
says:
If this prosecution had involved any
charge or issue of that kind, with re-
spect to the 6-cent rate, or the ship
ments by defendant at that rate
which are here in question, then be-
a MT
upon it, some clear proof on the part
of the government must have been
presented to sustain Its side of that
issue. For instance, If it was the fast
that the scent rate charged defen-
dant was not open to all, if while
giving defendant the benefit of the
scent commodity tariff in question
the carrier refused other shippers the
same rate and terms, or charged them
the lS-cent or higher rate, we should
look for the government to present
some competent proof of that fact,
or attempt so to do. But nothing of
the kind was done. The contrary is
the fact; the defendant is prosecuted
for receiving the same rate as was
open to other shippers under substan-
italy similar circumstances and con-
ditions, and because it did not pay
rate three times as much as other
shippers in the Chicago switching
would have been compelled to pay.
Again, il the issue or discrimination
or fdyoritism to defendant, or in
equality OF rates as between defend
ant and other shippers over the Alton,
were an issue IN the case, it Is plain
shat any evidence offered on behalf
OF defendant which tended to disprove
that contention and to show that the
Scent rate given to defendant was
open 10 all, was admissible, and could
not properly be objected TO by the
government or excluded by the court.
But such evidence presented by de-
fendant to the court and sought to
have admitted to the jury was object
ed to by the government and exclud-
ed. ana the uUUr TO such proof was
KEEP, lightly closed from the jury.
Inv exceptions when counsel take
to the statement of the opin on of
this court with respect to the position
and rulings Of the trial court upon the
question Of knowledge on the part OF
the accused shipper Of the lawful rate,
are based upon a misapprehensiOn Of
the opinion and Of the record.
The material questions here are
these.
/. Did the court in its opinion,
with accuracy and fairness, state and
give full consideration TO the rulings
of the trial court upon the question
here decided.
If 50, then counsel have no ground
for criticism upon this score. We
submit that upon examination of the
record their exception here become
captlous and groundless.
2. Does the opinion then fairly
meet and pass upon the same ques-
tons which the trial court so ruled
upon?
Now if the trial court did adopt and
Apply the view Of the law upon this
question which as counsel agree the
opinion Of this court has so imputed
to tiff that court carried out that
view In ruling on the admission and
exclusion Of evidence, and embodied
that view in its charge to the Jury
then the opinion of this court has ac-
curately and fairly stated the view
and ruling of the trial court, and the
criticisms of counsel are unsubstan-
tal and unfounded.
Tho reply then quotes from the
trial record testimony regarding the