The morning journal-courier., 1908-08-24
Monday, August 2A, 1908.
THE STANDARD OIL PETITION.

THE STANDARD OIL PETITION.
 With the filing of the governments petition for q rehearing, another chapter In the history of the Standard oil, has been written. There may be some doubt as to how the petition will be received by the court. It's zig orous criticism of the action of Judge Grosscup's court Is such as to warrant the belief that the government does not expect to be granted rehearing. Even the Springfield Republican, which believes the judgment as It stands is mischievous to the last de- gree" doubts that 1t will be granted. Nevertheless the document of MT, Bonapartc. though intellectual with the court, cannot but prove effectual with the voting-public on the eve of cleo ton as showing the vigorous attitude with which the republican party pro- poses to prosecute the abuses and un- fair discriminations of wealthy cor porations. now and in the future, As for the latter, 1t should prove a warn ing quite as effectual as If rehearng were already granted and final de- cision adverse to the Standard oil. were already handed down after trial that was fair to the last degree
 From the beginning the public has had very little doubt but that the Standard oil company of Indiana, the present defendant, has been guilty of accepting rebates. It has been cer- tain that the mother corporation, the Standard oil company of New Jersey, has. Yet, realizing the necessity of perfect justice in every case, whether the defendant is a rich corporation or a penniless man, the public has shown more charity toward the oil compan- ies than they have, perhaps, to the public. At any rate, the public has been certain that there was little jus tice in an unheard of s29,000,000 fine as means of punishing the New Jer- sey corporation, which was not on trial and had not chance to defend itself.
 It will be remembered that Judge Grosscup's reversal was based upon three contentious. The first of these was that certain legitimate testimony had been excluded by Judge Landis. This testimony was that of one of the governments own witnesses, a tariff clerk on the Chicago and Alton rall- road, who stated that he regarded the six cent Illegal rate that the oil cor poration has been doing business un- der, was legitimate one, and even that he believed the rate had been filed with the interstate commerce commission, as provided in the law This testimony was wrongly excluded in Judge Grosscups belief. On this makes a counter charge of error against Judge Grosscup. He contends that all reasonable latitude was given the defendant corporation to show that 1t did not know the six cent rate was illegal, He also takes the judge to task, in terms that are more gen. eral than convincing, for his conten- ton that the testimony of the traffic clerk was unfairly excluded
 What Mir Bonaparte has to say about Judge Grosscup's second and third contentious Is of more interest. The latter had objected to the enorm- ous fine because 1t was calculated up- on thes basis of 14e2 offences, every car-load being taken as an offence, In spite of the fair argument of the cor poration, which was that, even if gull ty it should not be fined on more than thirty-six counts, since the 1462 carloads constituted that number of separate shipments On that point Mir Bonaparte simply respectfully requests that the case should be re- opened for argument, if for no other reason, in order that there may be a more definite statement of the rule to be applied in determng the number of offences" Just why the decision of Judge Grosscup here was not def- ite enough is not made certain. He stated in his review of the case that the measure of the number of offeaces should not be arbitrary and that it had been purely arbitrary in this case.
 Finally Judge Grosscup pointed out the lack of discretion of Judge Landis in demanding fine greater than ihe total value of all the Indiana corpJr- ation's assets, such that an attempt at