The Honesdale citizen. [volume] (Honesdale, Pa.) 1873-1908, 1908-07-30
The Trusts and The Courts

The decision by the u. 8. Circuit Court
Of Appeals, last week, reversing the
Judgment Of Judge Landls, In the u. b.
DIstrIet Court, In which he Imposed a
fine OF $50, ,24O, 900 on the Standard OIL
Company, 10 calculated to give pause to
enthusiastic octopus hunters who im-
aRine that "trust busting" can be ac.
oompliBhed with hop, skip and jump.
It has become very evident that trusts
like the Standard OIL surround their pred
atory operations with network Of de
vices and precautions that make 1t diff
cult TO strike effectively at the real Of
Tenders, through any Law yet enacted.
In the case just decided, the Standard
OH Company OF Indiana Was indicted,
under the Elkins law, for having reoeiv'
cd rebates from the Chicago g. Alton
Railroad Co. ON shipments Of oil from
whiting, Ind, to East 81. Louis. 1t
was charged that the regular rate for
suoh shipments, as shown by the Com
pany's printed tables used by its freight
agents, was 10 cents per hundred weight,
while the rate paid by the defendant
was but cents, making rebate OF IL
cents. The shipments were made In L.
400 carloads, and the receipt OF the re-
bate on each OF these WAS charged In
separate count OF the indictment as a
distinct onsnss. The jury found ver
dict Of guilty on every count.
>. Before deciding on the penalty, Judge
LaEdIs sought information In regard to
the company and the parent corporation,
the Standard OIL Company, Incorporated
in New Jersey, and when counsel refused
to furnish this he called the officers Of
that body Into court, including John d.
Rockefeller, Henry II. Rogers, John D.
Archbold, W. H. Tilford, and O. III.
Pratt. Their testimony showed that the
earnings Of the parent corporation in the
three years covered by the indictments
amounted TO about $500. 0O0, 900 and that
dividends OF 40 per cent were paid. Hold
Ing the parent corporation the real party
in the case. and responsible for the acts
OF Its ofishoot, the Indiana corporation,
Judge Landls imposed the maximum PEN
atty OF &c. 900 for each car load.
The Court OF Appeals holds that Judge
LAndls erred, ~ In rejecting evidence
offered by the defendant for the purpose
Of showing that the trafiio officials OF the
corporation had no knowledge OF rate
OF lS cents, but had been informed by the
tariff clerk OF the railroad that the rate
: was o osnts,-a rate which Judge Landif
found had not been filed with the Inter
state Commerce Commission &; (2) In rul
ing that the acceptance OF the rebate on
each carload Has separate offence and
ON this point the appellate court holds
that the offense does not consist In CON
tracting for q rebate, but In receiving
ons, and that this ls done only when 9
settlement involving 1t is made, and thai
bat thirty six settlements having beer
made the maximum fine would be bu
S728, 900 ;(3). In an abuse OF the discretion
vested In the court, by imposing thu
maximum fine OF $50, 600 on the rebate 70
each car -loRd-.an aggregate amour
more than twenty nine times the $1,000,
900 capital stock OF the defendant cor
poratlon, ON the ground that this stool
was prlpoipally owned by the parent
corporation, while the latter was not II
any sense before the court.
Respecting the Defendants knowledge
OF the published rate, the appellate oour
says:
''The tariff sheet relied upon as the Lawful
published rate 1led with the Interstate Com
meroe Commission is tarin sheet No ~ o
the Chicago and 4t. Louis Traffic Aasoola
tiOn, and the fret thing TO be noted Ii tina
this tarin sheet makes no references by nam
TO petrolbum or the produots OF petroleum
ION the face OF that tart Il sheet, no lS-cen
leum appears. The ls'oent rate was onl
arrived ~ by process OF certain olrcum
locutiOnui that 10 to say, on the face OF tines
taTin sheets there was found printed llnt
'govsrned by illinois classification exoep
as noted herein; then by turning TO nlass
noAlion adopted by the Railroad aud Ware
house Commission OF Illinois, September
1880, II WAS found that petroleum and II
products were set down In the NTH claes
aud then by turning back TO tariu sheet No
~ II WAS found that the rate set down 10
the NTH GLASS was IL cents per 100 pounds
"And 90 out OF this process OF reIerenc
Aud oross reference the lawful publlahe
rats was evolved by the trial court to be
osnts, not because II 80 appeared on u
face of the tariH sheets, but because ny reI
eTonoe To other shoeta-sheets nxlnR' no
rates, but claaainoationu, aud that not b
the Interstate Commerce Commission O
the carrier, but by the Illinois Railway Com
misslOn--it could be 30 figured out
"rhs most We can say Ia that the uuehtlO
10 one upon whloh judges, after tull dlsou'
sion, might very reasonably Disagree.
The error OF the trial court In lakln
away from lhe plainth In error its right
submit TO the Jury the whole question {
whether Il had knowledge OF the tarin shes
from which It ID said 10 have accepted
concession, and therefore with intent
not paid In the honest belief that II was u
lawful rALe-is au error that rises Into oil