New-York tribune., 1908-08-23
VIM. ENDICOTT ON THE
STANDARD OIL CASE
NO INTENT, HE ARGUES.
TO BREAK THE LAW.
Evidence of Lack Of Intent Was Excluded
The Company Received No Special Advan-
tage-The Facts as They Appear from
Judge Grosseup's s Decision President s
Language Severely Censured.

10 the Editor OF The Transcript:
The necessarily brief newspaper summaries OF
the recent decision of the Appellate Court in
the Standard Oil case seem to to have laid
too little emphasis upon what should be the
question Of greatest interest to the public mind,
and that is whether the Standard Oil Company
did Intentionally receive from the Chicago &
Alton Railroad Company lower rates than We're
charged TO other shippers of OIL
A careful reading of Judge Grosscup's decision
seems to show conclusively that there was no
such guilty intent, and. in fact, that no such
advantage was given to the Standard OH COM
pany, contrary this doubtless may be 10 the
general public impression
The vital point is to ascertain what the
lawful rate, the government contending that it
was IS cents per hundred pounds. Upon this
the opinion Of Judge Grosscup says:
The tariff sheet relied upon the lawful
published rate filed with the Interstate Com
merce Commission is tariff sheet No. "a OF the
Chicago & st. Louis Traffic Association, and the
first thing to be noted is that this tariff sheet
makes no reference by name TO petroleum or
the products of petroleum On the face of that
tariff sheet. no 1S-cent rate for petroleum, or
the products Of petroleum appears. The 10
cent rate only arrived at by process CT
certain circumlocutions; that Is to say, on the
face OF those tariff sheets there was found a
printed line governed by Illinois classification
except as noted heren' then, by turning TO a
classification adopted by the Railroad and
Warehouse Commission Of Illinois September
Z, 1899, it was found that petroleum and It's
products were set down in the fifth class; and
then, by turning back to tariff sheet No a II
was found that the rate set down for the fifth
class Is cents per 100 pounds. And so out
of this process of reference and cross reference
the lawful published rate evolved by the
trial court to be Is cents, not because 1t so ap-
peared on the face of the tariff sheets, but be-
cause by reference to other sheets-sheets fix
ing, not rates, but classifications, and that not
by the Interstate Commerce Commission or the
carrier. but by the Illinois Railway Commission
it could be so figured out.
The Court remarks the number Of nice ju-
dicial questions raised in the case and declares
that ii is not prepared to say that tariff sheet
No. "a really fixes the rate petroleum and
its products at Is cents. The opinion reads:
The most we can say is that the question
is one upon which judges, after full discussion,
might very reasonably disagree The error OF
the trial court IN taking away from the plain
tiff in its right to submit to the jury the
whole question of whether 1t had knowledge OF
the tariff sheet from which it is said to have
accepted a concession, and therefore with intent
TO violate the law-whether the rate paid was
not paid in the honest belief that it was the
lawful rate-is that rises into one or
solid substance.
Doubtful as this is. It seems TO be the only
proof of the existence Of 1S-cent rate, no
evidence appearing in the case to show that
any shipper had ever paid or been asked TO pay
AS TO LEGAL CULPABILITY.
On the other hand, the defendant STANDARD
Oil Company offered the evidence of the traffic
manager of the oil company and of the traffic
clerk of the Alton road. both Of whom must
be presumed to know all about railroad rates
upon business coming under their charge. In
evidence which Judge Lands did not allow to
go to the jury both these experts offered to
had hear M y
cent rate and gave good reason why they sup
posed the lawful rate to be cents, the reason
being that the commodity rate" sheet showed
the rate TO be cents from Chicago to East
ST Louis, and the application sheet" declared
that all rates from Whiting (where the oil re-
fnery is situated) We're to be the same as from
Chicago. These sheets established the rates
to be charged by the railroads between THESE
points and these witnesses were ready to testify
that they supposed that the sheets had been fled
with the Interstate Commerce commission at
washington Herein lies the point TO legal
cIlpability and / quote from the opinion OF
Judge Grosscup as follows:
Had the Court" chat is Judge Landis)
found as a fact that the sheet had been SO
filed the 6 cent rate given to Bo-
gardus" tthe Standard Oil traffic manager)
1awould have been the lawful published rate"
This shows that If any offence was committed
IT was a purely technical one in not filing these
schedules at Washington, and it seems clearly
10 indicate no fraudulent intent, but at the
worst a possibly careless omission on the part
of the railroad officials Upon this the Judge
enlarges at considerable length upon the impos-
sibilfty of devolvtng upon every shipper the
duty of finding cut, under danger of enormous
penalties whether not the rate proposed TO
him had been filed at Washington, and was
therefore the lawful rate
Further evidence was offered and excluded by
Judge Lands to prove that a tariff was issued
by the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad
Company, q competing line of the Alton road,
October g. 1895, and filed with the Interstate
Commerce Commission two days later, making
6K cents the published and lawful rate over
that road and that the Standard Oil Company
had, during the eight years PRIOR TO the alleged
concessions from the Alton road. been making
large shipments at the rate of 61& cents over
the Chicago and Eastern road. The Court ex-
mains that the additional one-quarter of one
cent over the rate of the two competing roads
WAS TO cover a terminal charge.
The excluded evidence of Bogardus and Hol-
land is SO important TO correct understanding
of the merits of the case that ] must ask you
TO insert 1t.
THE EXCLUDED EVIDENCE.
We shall take up these subjects in the order
stated, the first being whether the shipper can,
without error. be convicted of accepting a con-
cession from a lawful published rate, even
though II is not shown as bearing the mat
ter of intent that the shipper at the time Of &C
cepting such concession knew what the lawful
published rate actually was-a view of the law
that is embodied in the charge and carried out
in the ruling excluding certain profered testl-
mony, including that Of Edward Bogardus,
who, being in absolute charge of the tarin al
fairs Of the plaintiff in error during the period
covered by the transaction, offered TO TESTIFY
that during that period he dld not KIo" amy
thing about an 1S-cent rate over the Alton
Railroad; that his attention had never been
called TO any such rate by any person or by
the examination OF any document; and that IL
was his understanding and belief based On
what he told by one Hollands, tarin clerk
for the Alton Railroad, that the rate over the
Alton road q cents, and that such rates had
rrri+h he Tnfp