Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1908-07-23
THE REVERSAL OF JUDGE Lam
DIS.


The unanimous action of the federal
circuit court of appeals in reversing
the Judgment of Judge Lands in the
Standard Oil case is surprising TO no
one who followed the trial of the
case and could not have been sur
prising to Judge Lands himself who
must have entertained no hope at
any time that he would be sustained
There is nothing much to be said
in defense of the methods pursued
by the Standard Oil company through
out its long career, but the offense for
which it was placed on trial in this
case was less lawless, if we may use
such an expression than any of which
it ever has been accused. 1t was not
contended that as a result of its
acts any competitor had been injured
or that the company had gained any
thing or had sought to gain anything.
1t had been guilty of shipping over a
certain road between two points at
less than the published rate of that
road. Yet a competing road over
which the Standard also shipped oil
between the same points had a pub
lished rate, the same as that given
the Standard on the other road and
all competing oil companies could
avail themselves of it and did do SO
as the Standard had done.
The attorneys for the defense claim
ed that they did not know that the
rate given them was not the pub
lished and open rate and the conten-
ton was a reasonable one since there
was nothing to be gained, and prose-
cution to be risked, in the use of a
secret rate which was no lower than
the open rate of a competing line.
But, that the Standard had awaited
itself of this rate was proved and that
it should have been convicted of that
offense though it was an inadvertence
was proper. Yet the circumstances
were plainly not such as to warrant
the imposition of the enormous fine
named by Judge Lands, or the pun
ishment of the parent company which
as the appellate court states was not
even under indictment.
The, trouble was that the Standard
was put on trial on its unsavory rec
ord and not for the offense alleged
to have been committed. This was
practically admitted by Judge Lands !
in his indignant denial of a motion
for a new trial in which he took oc-
casion to condemn the Standards !
long career of lawlessness and in !
which he seemed to regard himself as
the avenger of the long outraged !
law
DR.. Day in his Raid on Prosperi- |
ty" deals at length with the trial, the |
conduct of which he regards as the |
most outrageous in the history of |
gist for John D. Rockefeller is at all
times supported by the records of
the proceedings, his truthful state
ments and reasonable comments are L
received not unnaturally with sus- i
picion.
Yet before THE Raid on Prosperity"
was published, a well-known maya
zine contained an article on the trial
by a muck raking writer whose story
corroborated in all essential details
the later one of Chancellor Day The
magazine writer went further. He
described with admiring glee the i'm
patience and unfairness of Judge
Lands in dealing with the most out
rageous and heartless trust ever
constructed. 1t appeared to him that
the means employed by the court,
though they might be reprehensible,
were justified by the end. And he
believed that it was the end. 1t did I
not occur to him that Judge Lands .
order might be subject to review. His
laudation of Judge Lands was the !
most condemnatory story of the trial .
ever told.