The Detroit times., 1908-08-22
MAX ES INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COM.
ACT A PHANTOM
5fS6tHf Ef-AnptAIS-
RULE IN STANDARD OIL DE
clsloN, SAYS GOVERNMENTS
PETITION FOR A REHEARiNo.

CHICAGO, Aug 2l-The govern
ment today filed its petition for re-
hearing by the United STATES court
of Appeals. OF the case against the
Standard OH Co. OF Indiana. The
document charges Judges Grosscup,
Seaman and Baker. of the United
States circuit court OF appeals. with
injustice 10 Judge Lands and accuses
them OF mis.statement Of the latter $
position and the facts on record in
the case.
The petition. containing 5000 words.
was fled for the government by ChieI
Clerk VIM A Small. OF District At
torney sims office. John 5 Miller
and his assistant lawyers. represent
ing the oil company, have 90 days IN
which 10 file an answer and the pc
tition may be considered by the ap'
-1-e4iat--- 1tttfeeztr 60
Lands $29 900 fine They may
=
out hearing any further arguments.
The government sets forth in us
petition that the court OF appeals SAID
the trial judge t-andis) had refused
10 admit evidence which showed that
the Standard Oil Co did not know
the lawful rate between w NUNS LAu'i
and East ST. Louis. Ill.
The filing OF the petition is said 70
nbe the administration attempt 70
hsaye the Elkins' act and the inter
Estate commerce law from becoming
futile.
!. The Indictment in the case was for
sNiolation OF the Elkins act OF Feb. IS,
t19OS, making IL crime 10 accept u
hAr h.~ IL
transported in interstate commerce at
rless than the published and filed rate.
II was proved at the trial that the
Chicago L. Alton Railway Co. trans
ported TO East 81. Louis, Ill. and St.
Louis. Mo. I,492 carloads OF oil.
In all the dealings between shipper
and carrier, each carload was treated
as a distinct transaction and handled
as distinct piece Of business.
The published and fled rates on this
business were IS cents per 100 pounds
10 East St Louis and l9 IL cents 10
st. Louis. The Standard oil CO. actu'
ally settled on the basis OF cents ID
last St.-lo<.iS ss=S.1s+ats=iss-=st-=
Louis.
These facts were admitted.
The Standard Oil Co. interposed the
claim in defense that the Elkins act
was unconstitutional hat the tariffs
had not been posted ia two public
places at the stations
On but a single point involved ia
the trial up to the return OF the yer
dict OF guilty, are the rulings OF the
trial Judge criticised h. The court II
appeals. AYERS the petition.
The point on which the trial Judge
IS reversed by the court OF appeals
relates to his rulings on evidence and
his charge To the iurY with -retsrence
10 ignorance on the part OF the stan
dard oil Co. Of the lawful rate as
defense.
Among the points made by the pc
tition are the following.
The court of appeals in its opinion
has not correctly stated how the Judge
ruled on this subject
II is said in the opinion that he re-
fused 10 admit evidence TO the effect
that the Standard OIL Co. dlG not
know what the lawful rate was. The
tact 81, and the record so shows, that
all evidence tending TO show ignorance
en- rEe part or INC STanuaru t1rt t1'
was admitted for the consideration OF
the jury.
This evidence was largely that OF
the traffic manager OF the STANDARD
OH Co, Bogardus, who swore 10 a
conversation with Hollands. the rate
clerk OF the Alton, in which he SAID
Hollands told him tina. the rate had
Eeen filed.
The trial judge ruled that ignorance
ON the part or "a shipper or what the
lawful rate was. could be inte'Posed
as a defense, but thar 1t would not
constitute a. defense II IL appeared
that the ignorance was the result or
neglect on the part OF the shipper, or
Of wilful failure on the part or the
shipper 10 resort to the sources OF
information which were available
The government contends that this
Is the correct construction % the
statute on this subject.
The court OF appeals lays down the
rule that il is necessary for the gov
eminent 10 show beyond reasonable
doubt. as a part OF its case. that the
shipper actually knew what tho law
full published and filed rate was.
An Impossible Rule.
The government contends that this
Is an impossible rule; that ii IS con
trary to the purpose OF the Elkins act;