Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1908-07-28
$29,240,0o0 fine
ANNULLED BY court
UNITED STATES APPEAL BODY
REvERsEs FAMOUS DECISION
OF JUDGE LANDS.
Jurist Who Imposed Record Penalty
Is Hauled Over the Goals by Men
Who Decide Against His Ruling
Grosscup Gives Opinion.

Chicago, July 23-Federal judges in
the court of appeals lifted the burden
OF a 29,240,000 fine from the shout
ders of the Standard OIL Company OF
Indiana Wednesday and reversed the
judgment Of Judge Lands, by which
the heaviest fine ever imposed in
federal court was saddled upon the oil
company found guilty on 1,462 counts
Of accepting rebates from railroads.
Speedy rehearing Of the case, which
has attracted widespread attention, is
considered improbable, ana the coun-
sci for the oil company contend that
a second conviction cannot be OBJ
fained
The case was remanded with instruc.
tons that new~trial be held.
The jurists making up the court of
appeals are Judges Gresscup, Seaman
and Baker.
Judge Grosscup delivered the opin-
ion Of the court, Judges Baker and
Seaman concurring, and in sharp ar
raignment of the conduct Of the trial
Judge intimated that he may have
presumed to hold himself above the
law
y Judge Lands Called Arbitrary.
The decision declares that the man.
ner In which Judge Lands decided
upon the number of offenses that had
been committed by the defendant com.
pany was arbitrary. 1t holds that
some other method than the one he
used should have been applied.
Then 1t passes to the amount OF the
6ne, which it declares was Sufficient
to have wiped out many times the
property of the defendant" The court
helds that the only company on trial
was the Standard Oil Company of In
diana. 1t says that this corporation
alone could be punished and that tc
attempt to punish its holding corpora
taon would be to assert that person
could be punished who was never be
fore the court or who had never stood
trial. This, the judges say, would be
to assert startling principle of law.
Others Than Commerce Law.
The court declares that the ar
raignment Of the violation of an inter
state commerce law was to be com.
mended and that the results of such
violations were not too strongly stated
1t says, however, that the interstate
commerce law is not the only one in
the United States, and that it Is be
cause there are others that the case
10 reversed and remanded.
On the amount of the fine, the upper
court said:
Did the court in the fine imposed
abuse it's discretion? The defendan
indicted, tried and convicted was tn,
Standard Oil company, a corporation
OF Indiana. The capital stock of thi.
corporation is $1,000,O0O. There i.
nothing in the record in the way Of
evidence that some of the assets OF
the corporation were in excess of tina,
amount. 1t may therefore be safel,
assumed that but for the relation Of
the defendant to another corporation
not before the court, the court would
have measured out punishment on thu
basis Of the facts just stated"
Comment on Punishment,
The judges then commented on the
punishment of the defendant in such {
large amount and continued, saying:
Briefly stated, the reason Of the
trial court for imposing this sentence
was because 1t was brought out on ex
- animation that the capital stock OF
the Standard Oil Company of Indiana
was principally owned by the New
Jersey corporation, corporation moi
before the court The trial court, add
I ing that in concessions of the charac
ter for which the defendant before the
court had been indicted, tried and
convicted, the New Jersey corporation
was not a virgin offender.
Can an American judge, without
abuse of judicial discretion, condemn
anyone who has not had his day in
court? That to our minds, is strange
doctrine in Anglo-Saxon jurispru.
dence"