The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-11-24
LAST CHANCE OF
THE GOVERNMENT
Petition for Writ for Certiorari
in $29,240,000 Stand
ard Oil Case.
PETITION OF BONAPARTE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DENIES
JURISDICTION OF COURT.

Washington. Nov. %. Attorney Cen
eral Bonaparte fled today a petition
for a writ of certiorari in the supreme
court Of the United States urging that
court to issue a writ of certiorari to the
circuit court of appeals for the Sew
enth circuit to review the judgment Of
that court reversing the rulings Of
Judge lands in the case in which the
Standard oil company was fined S29,-
10000 on charges OF violating the anti
trust law. The attorney general takes
the position that the court of appeals
was without Jurisdiction when it re-
Versed Judge Lands decision.
The wording of the governments pc
titlon indicates that the department or
justice is fully aware of the courts
practice of denying 80 per cent of such
petitions. The court grants these pc
tltions only when constitutional ques-
tons are involved, and the attorney
general makes a strong effort TO have
it appear that. the present case falls
within this group. Much of the body
OF the petitions is devoted to arguing
reasons why the court should review
the controversy.
Importance of the Case.
.'Whether." says the petition. "tbe
government is or is not right in it's
contentious, we respectfully and ear
nestly urge that the court should is
sue the writ. The case is of the first
consequence. The principles to be de-
cided control the entire meaning and
purpose OF the law and impair the I'M
DERIVING policy Of congress. If, for
example, IL is necessar.- that the gov
eminent should prove actual knowledge
BY the shipper of the unlawful rate.
the law will be altogether deprived OF
effect against the very shippers who
violate it. In the view of the govern
ment, il is extremely important that
the law should be determined and ex-
pounded now, at this stage of this pres
ent case by this court"
Authority of Supreme Court.
The attorney general also takes the
position that the supreme court is
vested by law with authority to or
der any case of which a circuit court
of appeals has final Jurisdiction to be
brought up by certiorari and to deter
nine it in the same manner as if it had
been taken up on appeal OF writ or
certiorari by the defendant
1T cannot" he says, be true that
the authority of this court to exercise
Jurisdiction In the interest of the whole
people in such a case may be cut off by
a convicted defendants choice of the
forum infeIiorem."
Mr.. Bonaparte takes cognizance of
the fact that the court of appeals failed
10 consider many Of the governments
assignments on error. and II is under
stood that this failure meant that
Judge Lands had not committed -other
errors and that therefore the appellate
court decision was an affirmation by il
of the other portion of the decision. II
is pointed out. however. that the
Standard Oil company takes the oppo-
site view He adds:
Questions Not Decided.
'The trial OF this case consumed
many weeks and cost both the govern
ment and defendant very large sums
of money. Several of the questions on.
which the court OF appeals thus re-
fused to pass are absolutely vital and
the prosecution must certainly fail if
the contention of the defendant can be
sustained as to any one Of them. The
reply informs US that they viii be
again raised at a second trial and ir
the court of appeals declined there to
decide them or to say what its silence
means q stronger case could hardly be
presented for the benefcent interven-
ton of this court by certlorari.~
Much attention is also given to the
original right or the defendant to ap-
peal from Judge lands decision in the
court of appeals.
Originally" says the petition, when
the defendant was tried and convicted
that was the end of it, In giving him
the right of appeal. the law never in
tended that the appellate tribunal
should interfere with the sole discre-
ton OF the trial court in regard 70 the
character of punishment imposed. To
do so is to Interfere with the discre-
ton of the lower court on the one hand
and with the pardon power on the
other hand"
No Error by Trial Court.
on this point the attorney general fur
ther says:
The trial court committed no error by
holding the supplemental inquiry. The
trial court was not proceeding under the
statute within the limits of punishment
fixed by the statutes. II so, there was no