The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1908-07-23
BIC STANDARD OIL
FINE SET ASIDE;
lands REBUkED


reversed the famous decision OF Judge
Kenesaw NJ Lands In. which he fined
the Standard Oil Co., OF Indiana, $29,'
100000 The case is remanded to the
lower court for new trial.
The decision Of the circuit court,
composed of Judges Grosscup, Baker
and Seaman, was scathing arraign'
ment Of Judge Lands. in which 1t
was asked IL the court believed him
self above the law In imposing fine
that would fall on the shoulders OF the
mother corporation-the Standard Oh
Co., OF New Jersey-when- the In
diana corporation alone under the
law could be held responsible.
1t seemed to be the irony Of fate
that Judge Grosscup should have writ
ten the decision Of the upper court
He not only wrote the decision, but
read the decision to the waiting throng
in the court room. Judge Grosscup
and Judge Lands have not been the
best OF friends for some time, as 4
result OF certain statements made
months ago by Judge Lands, concern
ing federal Judges who talk publicly
on matters which might come under
their judicial attention.
RockefeIIer's Lawyer Present.
When the three judges took their
seats on the bench the court room was
crowded to the doors John S. Miller,
Rockefeller's $4,000 lawyer. was pres.
ent to represent the oil trust He was
accompanied by Attorney Moritz Ros-
enthal and several other Standard OIL
lawyers. Dist. Atty. Edward M. Sims
appeared for the government.
All that occurred In court was the
reading OF the very last paragraph OF
the decision. Judge Grosscup read II
as follows:
The judgment of the district
court Is reversed and the case re-
manded with instructions to grant
a new trial. and proceed further
in accordance with this opinion.
That was all and court adjourned
Immediately Dist. Atty. Sims held
conference with Assistant James Will
kerson and decided to rush the case
to another trial In the fall.
1--WE cannot appeal the case" said
Mr.. Sims, but after a careful read
ing OF the decision we find We can get
"a new trial at once. That ID what we
will do"
Not only did the upper court find
fault with Judge Lands method OF
filming the trust, but II criticised him
for his manner OF deciding the num-
Der Of counts left in the indictment
upon which trial should be held.
The government contended that each
count was an offense. The upper
court held otherwise.
The Crack at Judge Lands.
The arraignment OF Judge Lands
begins with the taking up OF that mat
ter. Here is what the court said:
The number OF offenses in the pres
emf case should have been ascertained
in accordance with these principles
(the transaction OF granting rebate,
as transaction, must be entirely con-
summated before II Is an offense).
The measure adopted by the trial
court was wholly arbitrary-had no
basis In any intention, or fixed rule
dNscoverable In the statute. And no
other way OF measuring the number OF
ofhenses seems 10 have been given a
thought either by the government or
tn trial court"
The court then goes into the fining
OF the trust by Judge Lands. In this
came the words which are taken as
direct criticism OF one OF the most
remarkable decisions ever rendered
by district Judge.
Did the Court Abuse Discretion
This brings us. then, TO the last
question" the decision reads Did
tine court. In the fine imposed, abuse
its discretion?
Briefly stated the reason Of the
trial court for. imposing this sentence
was because. after conviction and be-
fore sentence, Is was brought out, on
an examination of some OF the officers
and stockholders OF the Standard Oil
Co, OF New Jersey, that the capital
stock OF the indiana corporation, the
defendant before the court, was prin-
cipally owned by the New Jersey cor
poration, a corporation not before the
court-the trial court adding upon no
evidence, however. TO be found In the,
record and upon no Information
specifically referred to- that In con-
cessions OF the character for which
the defendant before the court had
been indicted. tried and convicted, the
New Jersy corporation was not a vir
gin offender
lis sentence such as this. based on
reasoning such as that. sound? Pas
ing over the fact that no word OF EVIL
dence or Information supporting the