New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1908-08-26
|REHEARINC ASKED
Governments Latest Move In
Standard Oil Case.
BELIEVE HIGHER COURT ERRED
Federal Attorneys Point Out Al.
legged Inaccuracies in the
Recent Decision.


ment's petition for rehearing by
the United States court of appeals of
the case against the Standard Oil
company of Indiana was filed here and
represents, it is authoritatiyely stat
ed, the administrations attempt to
save the Elkins act and the interstate
commerce law from becoming futile.
The filing of the petition marked
the appearance of Attorney General
Bonaparte in the case, as well as that
of Frank B. Kellogg, who is special
assistant to the attorney general. Be
sides these two names the petition is
signed by Edwin w. Sims, United
States district attorney at Chicago,
and Special Assistant James II. vii
kerson, both of whom presented the
governments side of the case in the
original hearing before Judge Lands,
who administered the famous fine OF
$29, 240,O00 against the defendant.
Although it is not specifically stated
IN the petition it was agreed by coun-
sci for the government in their con-
ference at Lenox, Mass, following the
reversal by the appellate court OF
Judge l4andis' decision, that if the in
depreciation of the law given by
Judges Grosscup, Seaman and Baker
was allowed to stand successful prose.
cution of rebate cases against cor
porations would be impossible in the
future. The lawyers at that confer
ence, over which the attorney general
OF the United States presided, were
unit in expressing the opinion that the
reforms in rebate matters brought
about by the Roosevelt administration
would represent so much waste of
time unless the upper court can be
convinced that it is in error in it's
construction of the law.
Overruled on Single Point.
ION but single point involved In
the trial up to the return Of the YER
dict of guilty" says the petition. ARE
the rulings of the trial court criti-
cised by the court Of appeals. In all
other particulars his rulings are sus.
tanned. The point on which the trial
Judge is reversed by the court of ap-
peals relates to his ruling ON evidence
and his charge to the jury with refer
ence 10 ignorance on the part Of the
Standard Oil company of the lawful
rate as defense. The court of ap-
peals. in Its opinion, has not correctly
stated how the Judge ruled on this
subject
Continuing, the petition declares
that whereas the opinion of the court
of appeals states that Judge Lands
refused to admit evidence to the eff
feet that the Standard Oil company
did not know what the lawful rate
was the record of proceedings In the
lower court shows that such evidence
was admitted.
Although the government points out
what it considers other errors in the
opinion of the appellate court the allie.
cation that the Standard Oil did know
tnat i was not paying the legal rate
is regarded as the vital point. Il with
the evidence introduced at the trial
before Judge Lands i Gan be held
that the defendant did not have guilty
knowledge of its own acts then sue.
oessfu1 prosecution Of similar cases is
regarded as impossible All the years
Of legislation designed to correct re.
bate abuses would have to bs re
nealed