The Cairo bulletin., 1908-08-22

The punishment therefore is no
more severe than that is inflicted up-
on a letter carrier who steals a letter
and is sent to the penitentary for
three years, thereby depriying him Of
| his earning capacity for that time. II
! is not nearly so severe as the mini.
mum penalty of five years in the peni-
! tiary imposed upon a banker who
misapplies the funds of his bank.
The Government claims that on ac-
, count of the size of the fine lon, there
is no necessity for retrial of the
case; that the Circuit Court of Ap-
peals may itself, name the fine which
should be imposed and calls upon the
court to do so in case II adheres to
the view that Judge Lands abused his
discretion in imposing so large a fine
The petition concludes:
1T is therefore respectfully submit.
ted:
That the opinion of this court is
based upon a misconception of tho
record with reference to the rulings of
trial judge as to the admission of CIV
idence tending 10 show want of Iuowl.
edge, and with that reference to his
construction of the statute on that
subject, and the theory on which the
case was tried; that the evidence Of
Bogardus which it is claimed showed
want of knowledge was admitted. that
il was overcome, however by the facts
and circumstances of the case aud
that the evidence as an entirety was
sufficient to show actual knowledge orr
what in law was its epuivalent;
That the Interpretation of the stat.
ute by this court, imposing no duty
on the shipper and permitting a de.
Tense of ignorance to be made without
regard TO the negligence Of the ship
err, IS contrary TO the language of the
statute and to its purpose and serious
ly impairs the efficiency of the act;
That the ruling stated in the opiu-
ion as to the basis for determining the
number of offenses involves an enron
eous construction of the statute and
fails to take into consideration that
the thing which is prohibited by the
act Is the transportation Of property al
the unlawful rate;
That the criticism of the trial Judge
for abuse of discretion rests upon a
wrong assumption of what the trial
judge actually did and assumes that
he attempted to try and punish the
Standard Oil Company of New Jersey,
when in fact, as appears from the rec /
ord, the entire proceedings were dt
rected against the defendant the
Standard Oil Company OF Indiana;
That the ruling stated in the opin- |
ion to the effect that fine is exces. |
sivc when it exceeds in amount the |
ability of the defendant to pay is an |
in criminal law and if gen |
orally applied would prevent the prac.
lical enforcement of most criminal /!
statutes:
That, in short, the opinion as itI
stands enormously States material |
portions Of the record; does injustice |
to the trial Judge; leaves doubtful in |
a new trial the rule OF law to be an. |
piled, both as to knowleds IN the |
part of the shipper, and as to-te mum
Der of offenses; appears to be in con
iict with the language of the Supreme
Court and with the previous language |
Of the presiding judge of this court
and with the great weight of legal au-
horty; and, II permitted to remain
will tend to encourage dis
obedience to law, to impede the en-.
.orccment of salutary statutes AMI |
argely to defeat their purpose.
For the reasons stated we respect.
ully request that a reargument of this
,ase be granted"
The petition is signed:
CHARLES J. BONAPARTE.
Attorney General.
FRANK b. KELLOGG.
Special Assistant to the Attorney Gen
eral