Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-10
STANDARD OILS REPLY
Another Step in Fight Against
s2e.OOO,OOO Fine.
EVERY POINT CONTESTED
Indiana Company Tried, But New
Jersey Company Fined.
THAT'S WHAT COUNSEL SAYS
Immense Fine in Contravention of
Principles Stated in Magma
Charta. It Is Declared.
THAT'S WHAT COUNSEL SAYS

CHICAGO. Ill. September 1o.-One more
period in the fight of the Standard Oil
Company to save paying the fine of
Srg.OOo.GtO imposed on it by Judge Lands
was reached today when the reply of the
company to the petition of the govern
lnent for a rehearing of the case was
submitted to the court of appeals for the
seventh circuit.
Point by point the answer which was
formally placed on record at the OPEN
ing of the office of the clerk of the court
by Col r. w. Stewart general attorney
I'm Chicago for the Standard Oil Com
pany. takes up the arguments of the
petition for rehearing which set forth the
alleged errors and particularly suggested
That the upper court had erred in its un-
derstanding of what the trial judge really
lad said concerning the previous offenses
by the Standard Oil Company of Indiana
or the Standard Oil Company of New Jer-
SeE In the petition for rehearlng the re-
viewing judges are charged with asSum-
ing that Judge Lands attempted to try
and punish the Standard Oil Company of
New Jersey in the original proceedings.
which We're against the Standard Oil
Company of Indiana. On this point the
answer declares ii to be a matter of no
consequence whether the trial court re-
the Indiana company as not an of
fender
Meat of the Cocoanut.
The real point s' says the answer,
did the trial court in imposing punish
ment take into consideration the relations
between the Standard Oil Company of
New Jersey and the Standard Oil Com
pany of Indiana and did 1t base its fine
upon the wealth of the Standard Oil
Company of New Jersey and it's ability
10 pay instead of upon the wealth of the
Standard Oil Company of Indiana and It's
ability to pay"
To determine this question the Stand
ard Oil Company attorneys assert that
few sentences extracted by the govern
ment counsel from the words of Judge
Lands are not sufficient and quote at
length from Judge Lands opinion to
show that he referred to the New Jersey
corporation as the real defendant and
defendant.
The conclusion stated by the answer is
that the enormous fine inflicted upon the
defendant was because of the ownership
of its stock by the Standard Oil Company
of New Jersey and because Of the finan-
cial standing of the latter corporation is
beyond dispute when the entire opinion
of the trial court is considered"
Cites the Magma Charta.
Counsel for the company refer to this
fine as unheard of and claim it is unjust
and unusual, coming within the category
of fines forbidden by the Constitution and
of fines mentioned in the Magma Charta.
which prevent defendant from earning q
living.
On the question of knowledge of the
lawful rate on the part of the defendant
shipper, which was one of the points on
which great emphasis was laid for rehear-
ing. the answer asserts that the. ex-
n 10 1ayttc
based on misrepresentation of the opin-
ion and the record in the case.
The exclusion of certain evidence and
the question of intent discussed in
detail in the answer, which asserts that
the reviewing court was justified in the
ruling which it made.
Disagree as to Offenses.
On the point OF the number of offenses.
which the petition for rehearing asserted
was obscure, in the opinion of the re-
viewing court the answer contends that
the governments counsel has raised a
cloud where there is none and that the
ruling of the court clearly shows that
the number of offenses was regulated BY
lie settlements and payments, of which
there were thirtysiX. and not by the car
loads, numbering 1.462. on which the fine
was predicated.
In conclusion the answer, which was
prepared by Attorney John S. Miller, who.
A l.
fred ID. Eddy, represents the defendant
aSeTts that the suggestion of the govern
nent counsel that the rehearing be
granted in order TO certify a question to
The federal Supreme Court is not a proper
one, because there was no division of
opinion among the judges of the review
ing court.
Government May Answer
Copies of the answer of the Standard
Oil Company were served on the chief
clerk in the office of United States Dis
trict Attorney Sims
nder the rules of federal judicial pro-
'edure the government attorneys have
lne rlSht TO fiie reply to the answer to
ihelr petition, If they discover in it new
matter which they consider needs a re-
1oinder
The answer will be presented to Judges
t'rosScup. Baker and Seaman of the
United States circuit court of appeals
and VIII probably be considered at the
october term of court, which opens Octo-
ber 8.
argument on a petition for rehearins
cases being decided on petition and an
Swer without oral argument unless other
wise ordered by the court.
May Hear Arguments.
\ request to hear argument from either
side could under the rules be honored by
The court First Assistant District Attor-
Hey James II. Wilkerson said today:
Il am not in position to say what
course the government Will pursue Mr..
Sims has not returned from his vacation
and whether we reply To the answer or
ask for oral argument will depend on his
decision after he reads the answer which
have not seen myself yet
NEW HAMPSHIRE ALL RIGHT
New Battleship Does Well on Final
Trial Today.