The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-07-22
Case in Which Standard Oil 20.
Was Fined Sa9.240,oOo
Is Sent Back to Lower COurl 1of
Retrial.
THREE JUDGES AGREE
u. S. Court of Appeals Unan
nous in Its Decision.
The Opinion Was Written by
Judge Peter s. GrOsscup.

Chicago. July 22.-By unanimous
opinion OF the United States court or
appeals for the seventh district, the
famous case of the government against
the Standard oil company of Indiana
in which the latter was fined $29.24O,-
600 by Judge Lands in the district
court must be retired.
The court of appeals differs with
the trial court on three vital points.
holding that Judge Lands excluded
evidence for the Standard Oil COM
pany OF Indiana, which should have
been admitted to show proper inter-
est in the rate the company paid on
Oil; that he erred in considering each
car lot a separate offense and that in
imposing the maximum fine for first
offense he abused the discretion
vested in his court. 1t is strange doc
trine. says the opinion where under
million dollar corporation such as the
defendant-the Standard Oil company
of Indiana-may be fined % times
the amount of its capital stock in or
der to punish a defendant not even
under indictment. By this latter Is
meant the parent company, the Stand
ard oil company of New Jersey.
This decision concurred in by Judges
Baker and Seaman, was delivered by
Judge Grosscup. who wrote the opin-
lon. The concluding sentence of the
opinion reads:
The Judgment of the district court
Is reversed and the case remanded
with instructions to grant a new trial.
and proceed further in accordance
with this opinion"
The opinion begins with a brief
statement of the manner in which the
case was brought from the district
court to the court of appeals. Section
9 OF the interstate commerce act, re-
lating to the publishing and filing of
rates is quoted and the opinion con-
tinues:
There are 169 assignments of err
ror. taking up 81 pages of printed rec
ords. In the interest of the conclu-
sion, however,. TO which we have come
IT is unnecessary to review many of
these assignmentS-the ones reviewed
covering all the propositions of law
that we deem essential to the guild
ance of the district court in the event
of a second trial. Comprehensively
stated the assignments of error which
we shall review relate:
"Flrst-To the view adopted by the
trial court, carried out in it's rulings
on the admission and exclusion of evi-
0ence, and embodied in it's charge to
the jury that a shipper can be con-
siCSNd VI dCNCPtlIS Al COICeSSlOn from
the lawful published rate. even though
IT is not shown. as bearing on the mat
ter of intent, that the shipper, at the
time Of accepting such concession.
knew what the lawful published rate
actually was:
"second-To the view adopted by
the trial court that the number of of
fenses is the number of car loads Of
property transported irrespective of
whether each carload, the whole or
the part only of a single transaction
constituted a shipment; and.
"Third-Whether in the imposition of
the fine named the trial court abused
the discretion vested in the court.
First Error.
I'VE shall take up these subjects in
the order stated, the first being wheth-
er the shipper can without error. be
convicted of accepting a concession
from the lawful published rate, even
thought ii is not shown as bearing on
b. the matter of intent, that the shipper.
at the time of accepting such conces-
sion, knew what the lawful published
rate actually was-in view of the law
that is embodied in the charge and
carried out the ruling excluding GER
tain proffered testimony including tina /.
of one Edward Bogardus, who being in
absolute charge of the traffic affairs
of the plaintiff in error during the
period covered by the transactions Of
fered to testify that during that period
he did not know anything about an IS
cent rate over the Alton railroad, thai
his attention had never been called to
any such rate by any person or by the
examination of any document; and
that 1t was his understanding and be-
lief based on what he was told by one
Hollands. tariff clerk for the Alton
railway, that the rate over the Alton
road was cents and that such rates
hn6 t.rfth
commerce commission.
Hollands, who was called by the
government. had previously testified
that he had no recollection of telling
Bogardus that the six cent rate. a COM
modify rate had been filed with the in
answering on his voir dire, the Jury
being excused, Hollands further stated
that he regarded six cents per 1OC
pounds as the oil rate between Whit
ing and East St. Louis; that he re-
garded a certain application sheet
which covered Whiting at Chicago
rates and the sheet for Chicago, ta-
ken together. as showing a six cents
commodity rate; that whenever ht
spoke of the rate on this commodity
between Whiting and East St. Louis
he had in mind those papers and thai
had he been asked by Bogardus OF
anybody else, whether there was 8
rate between Whiting and East ST
Louis he would have answered tha-
there was and that it was filed ant
such a rate was cents; which evi
dence thus proffered was excluded b,
the court for the sole reason that as /
matter of fact as the court not tn,
jury. found the fact to be, the applica
tion sheet containing this cent com
modify rate had not been filed with tn,
Interstate commerce commission
If II Had Been Otherwise.
Had the court found as a fact tha
the sheet had been so filed, or submit
ting that question to the jury had tn
Jury found that that sheet had been s