The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-09-11

Is that the enormous fine inflicted
upon the defendant was because Of the
ownership of its stock by the Standard
Oil company of New Jersey. and be-
cause of the financial standing Of the
latter corporation is beyond dispute
when the entire opinion of the trial
court is considered"
A large part of the petition for re-
hearing, the answer asserts, is q reit-
Grafton of points which no one disputes,
and counsel for the defendant continue
their attack on the petition by declar-
ing that the government attorneys are
mistaken in their Interpretation of the
Armour case. cited in the petition and
in suggesting that the reviewing court
is in conflict with the supreme court
knowledge of Lawful Rate.
On the question of knowledge of the
lawful rate on the part of the defend
ant shipper. which was one of the
points on which great emphasis was
laid in the petition for rehearing, the
answer asserts that the exceptions of
the governments counsel are based on
misapprehension of the opinion and
the record in the case. The exclusion
of certain evidence and the question of
intent are discussed in detail in the an
swer, which asserts that the reviewing
court was justified in the ruling which
Ii made.
On the point of the number of Of
lenses which the petition for the re-
hearing asserted was obscure in the
opinion of the reviewing court. the an
swer contends that the governments
counsel has raised cloud where there
is none, and that the ruling of the court
clearly shows that the number of Of
lenses was regulated by the settle
ments and payments of which there
were thirty-six. and not by the carloads
numbering 1852. on which the fine was
predicated.
Suggestion Not Proper.
In conclusion, the answer, which was
prepared by Attorney John S. Miller.
who together with Moritz Rosenthal
and Alfred d. Eddy represents the de-
PENDANT, asserts that the suggestion of
TIE governments counsel that the re-
hearing be granted in order to certify
a question TO the federal supreme court
is not proper one, because there was
no division of opinion among the judges
of the reviewing court
Copies of the answer of the Standard
OIL company were served later in the
day on the chief clerk in the office of
OitibCu oldltS Attorney sims.
Under the rules of federal judicial
procedure, the government attorneys
have the right to file a reply to the an
swer to their petition if they discover
in IL new matter which they consider
needs a rejoinder.
The answer will be presented to
Judges Grosscup, Baker and Seaman
of the United States circuit court of APP
peals. and will probably be considered
at the October term of court, which
opens Oct. 6.
1t is not for the court to hear argu-
ment on petition for rehearing, cases
being decided on petition and answer
without oral argument unless other
wise ordered by the court.
A request to rehear argument from
either side could. under the rules, be
honored by the court. First Assistant
District Attorney James H. Wilkerson
said today:
Il am not in a position to say what
course the government will pursue Mr..
Sims has not returned from his vaca-
ton, and whether we reply to the an
swer or ask for oral argument will de-
pend on his decision after he reads the
answer. which / have not seen myself
as YETI
s