New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1908-09-11
AGAINST REHEARING
STANDARD OIL ARGUES.
L4ussrer to Petition to Reopen Ap-
neal from "Unheard-of Fine"

=art
.---.,,v ~ Indiana IN answer fled to-day TO
.Is,o- oe the government attorneys for a
.-s,r ~ the appeal from Judge Landiss hufng
- Germany s2s 2saeea for violations Of the anti
-. laws uphold the decision OF Judges Gross
- BAKER snd Seaman. OF the United States Cir
s+ court Of Appeals. reversing the judgment and
- ,ba burden Of the enormous fine as good
~ s-np,r justified by the record IN the case
- ~, mint the answer, which was formally
,..s IN record the opening OF the once OF the
-. 20 .ba court by Colonel R. w Stewart, gen.
=, ..+o-,ev in Chicago for the Standard OIL Com
e 80 ~, the arguments OF the petition for
49, -, which set forth alleged errors and par
',-,,- suggested that the upper court had erred
- -. ,,,5srztnnding OF what the trial judge really
rs o55 concerning the previous offences by the
standard oil Company OF t'ua1i~ VI 'e 0'aosA~
fll Company Of New Jersey
= 80 -,e,tion for rehez-1ng the reviewing judges
-. charged with assuming that Judge bahcls at
.,,.z n nv and punish the Standard on Com
- 81 New Jersey in the original proceedings,
PAM -. .r.t,s- TIE Standard OIL Company Of
- On mis- point the answer declares it 10
80 If no consequence whether the trial
oe -ss--.a 70 the New Jersey company or the
Ist.,e company as not a virgin onenoer
- -ssl roiat is" says the answer, did the
- :, imposing punishment take into consid-
-,on the relation between the Standard on Com
-. ~ New Jersey and the Standard Oh Company
- T,sisna and cid Il base its me upon the wealth
81 The Standard OIL Company Of New Jersey ana
eh 49,
standard Oil Company OF Indiana and It's ability 10
pay?" r.-.-. %, -.
To determine this question the Standard on at
-,--s,-s assert that few sentences extracted by
ne government counsel from the words OF Judge
7,5is are not sufficient. and quote at length from
-. rs,5s's ooinion 10 show that he referred 10
~ New Jersey corporation the real defendant
e,5 n The Indiana company as the nominal de-
fendant"
he
&c of the ownership Of its stock by the Standard
on Company Of New Jersey and because Of the
financial standing OF the latter corporation Is De
xond DISPUTE when the entire opinion OF the fr1aI
o,,,-- is considered" On this point the answer
SAYS;
counsel can find no authority 70 support that
which the thai court did and this court condemns
n fixing their unheard OF fine The provision OF
-ha Bin Of Rights in the eighth amendment 10 lne
f.5e-aI Constitution forbidding the imposition OF
z,sss,,e fines eracts cherished principle Of Mag
"a Charta which is the foundation OF American ana
Aaelo-Saxon laws and Jurisprudence, and which re
ired that fines imposed for faults or crimes should
be after the OF the fault or ACCORDING 10
-a Nervousness Of it and forbade fines so large as
to deprive q defendant Of that which was necessary
70 his vocation or livelihood
SOLEMN REITERATIoN.
: large part OF the petition for rehearing. the
answer asserts. Is q repetition Of points which no
che cortradicts saying: Counsel with solernn1ty,
Ieits-ate what no one disputes
Thou says1 Al undisruted thing
Il such a solemn way
rte answer goes on TO say that counsel for the
defendant continue their attack on the petition by
declaring that the government attorneys are mis-
taken in their Interpretation OF the Armour case
cited in the petition and in suggesting that the re-
viewing court is in conflict with the Supreme Court
on the question Of knowledge Of the lawful rate
a the part Of the defendant shipper. which was
,aSiG
in the petition for rehearing. the answer asserts
rrat the exceptions Of the governments counsel
re based On q misapprehension OF the opinion and
tie record in the case The exclusion Of certain
e6ence and the question Of intent are discussed In
detail IN TIE answer which that the review
!ne court was justified in the ruling which il made
on The question Of rnisapprehension the opinion
SAYS that it is the counsel for the government
and not this court the counsel charge. who
quoting from their petition) have proceeded upon
q rnisapprehension Of what evidence was in fact
submitted 10 the jury as shown by the record "
On the point of the number OF offences, which
the retition for rehearing asserted obscure in
the opinion the reviewing court the answer con-
tends that the governments counsel has raised
cloud where there is none, and that the ruling of
the Court clearly shows that the number Of offences
was regulated by the settlements and payments. of
which there were thirty-six and not by the car
loads numbering 1852 on which the-fne was predi-
Gated
REAL NUMBER OF OFFENCES.
IN conclusion. the answer which was prepared
by John s Miller who with Moritz Rosenthal and
Alfred .. Eddy. represents the defendant. asserts
that the suggestion Of the government counsel that
the rehearing be granted in order 10 certify ques
tion 10 the federal Supreme Court is not a proper
one. because there was no division Of opinion
among the judges OF the reviewing court
wHEH. COURT WILL. CONSIDER ANSWER
~ Co-a-
pary were served later in the day on the chief
clerk in the Office Of United States District At
torney Sims.
Under the rules Of federal judicial procedure
The government attorneys have the right to file a
reply 10 the answer their petition If they dis
cover in It new matter which they consider needs
retoinder.
sss answer viii be presented 10 Judges Grosscup
Baker AMI Seaman. of the United States Circuit
Court Of Appeals. and will probably be CONSIDERED
a. the October term Of court, which opens Octo-
ber6
i is not usual for the court 10 hear argument on
petition for a rehearing. cases being decided on
petition and answer without oral argument unless
otherwise ordered by the court
request 10 hear argument from either side
could under the rules be honored by the court FIRST
Assistant District Attorney james h "hkerson
ssld to-day: u am not in position 10 say what
course the government viii pursue. MI Sims mas
not returned from his vacation ana "heIher We
reply 10 the answer or ask for oral at uillen' 4
oepsnd on his decision after he reads the answer
which have not seen myself as yet
Oyster Bay, Sept 1o.-AttoTney General boha
rs-te who was in conference with President hoose-
sslt this afternoon, asked as ne vas lea'ne
oyster Bay whether he had anything TO say rega[o-
ing the answer OF the Standard OH Company OF
Indiana. fled IN Chicago. to the petition OF INC
Government attorneys a reheartng OF the appear
from the Judgment Of Judge Lands. ning the COM
pany s9a 90 600 for violation of the ant-rebate laws