Bryan morning eagle. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1898-1909, 1908-07-23

| XEZZLZLZZzZZZZkH& SSM&QddLLuB
JUDGE PETER 3. GRosscUP OF CHICAGO.
dence adduced at the trial showed the
company received rates one-third as
large as other shippers were obliged
! to pay. II was contended by counsel
| for the oil company that the rate was
not secret, but the jury found other
wise.
Judge Grosscup wrote the opinion
and delivered II, Judges Baker and
Seaman concurring In il. The opinion
concludes thus: The judgment Of the
district court is reversed and the case
remanded with instruction to grant a
new trial and proceed further in &C
cordance 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
OF the interstate commerce act, re-
lating to publishing and filing OF rates,
Is quoted
There are 1863 assignments OF error.
II is unnecessary to review many OF
these assignments. Complementary
HNdNtht tie dSolblilthAo Va OliOl "hANh
the court reviews are:
First, to the view adopted by the
trial court, carried out in rulings on
admission and exclusion of evidence,
and embodied in the charge to the
jury, the shipper would be convicted
of accepting a concession from a law.
full published rate, even though It was
not shown to have a bearing on the
matter intent, that the shipper at the
time i'm accepting, knew what the law
full published rate actually was.
Secondly, to the view adopted by
the trial court the number of of.
lenses is the number of carload pro.
perty transported irrespective OF
whether each carload, I'm whole or in
part only, was a single transaction re.
sulting in shipment; and
Thirdly, whether the imposition OF
the fine named the trial court abused
the discretion vested in the court.
Taking up the question as to wheth-
er each shipment constituted sepa-
rate offense, by which Interpretation
of law Judge Lands imposed the larg-
est fine in history on the Standard Oil
company. the court says this.
The griSt of the offense is the ac-
ceptanCe of the concession, irrespeC-
tive Of whether tbs property involved
was i'm carloads, trainloads or pounds
Has the shipper fully and finally &C
copied a concession when he has done
nothing more than agree with the car
rier on less than published and filed
rates, to be paid for transportation OF
his property? Isit not necessary that
transportation be closed by the act.
ual payment Of a lower rate?
"ln the rebate the shipper paid in
first instance full rate to the carrier
and afterwards received back part
Manlfestly the offense of accepting a
rebate has not been committed until
the shipper has taken back part of
the first money, whereby his property
has been transported at less than the
lawful rate. Proof that he agreed to |
accept return of part of full rate
stopping there-will not support an in
dictment for accepting a rebate Such |
agreement is not binding, and at any |
time before a complete conclusion the |
shipper may repent and insist upon |
the carrier keeping the whole amount. |
The measure adopted b. the trial
court shows wholly arbitrary-had no
basis of any intention or fixed rule dis.
coverable In the statutes, and no other
way OF measuring the number of Of
lenses seems to have been given
thought"
AS to whether Judge Lands in i'm.
posing the monumental fine abused
he discretion vested in the court, the
,ourt asks:
Can court without abuse Of judi.
,ial discretion wipe out all the pro-
)erty Of the defendant before the
,ourt and all assets to which creditors
ook in an effort to reach and punish
! party that is not before the court-a
,arty that is not even indicted? Can
IN American judge without abuse OF
judicial discretion condemn anyone
Tho has not had a day in court? That
, our mind is strange doctrine of An.
lo-Saxon Jurisprudence Can that
ghtfully be done here on no other
asis than the judges personal belief
lat the party marked bin for punish
lent deserves punishment? II so IL is
ecause a man who happens to be
ldge is above the law" 4