Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-09-11
Standard Replies to Pc
tition for a Rehearing
Of Appeal from Big Fine
Judge Lands Imposed.
Says Petition Was Improper, As
Court Was Unanimous.

Chicago, Sept. lU.-COunSel IoT the
Standard Oil Co. of Indiana in an
answer filed today to the petition OF
the government attorneys for a re-
hearing Of the appeal from Judge
Lands judgment fining the company
$4,000, 900 for violations of the anti
rebate laws, uphold the decision OF
Judges Grosscup. Baker and Seaman
OF the United States circuit court or
appeals reversing the judgment ana
lifting the burden OF the enormous
fine, as good law amply justified by the
record in the case
Point by point the answer when
was formally placed on record at the
opening of the office of the clerk OF
the court by Colonel r. w. Stewart
general attorney in Chicago for the
Standard Oil Co, takes up the arsu-
ments of the petition for rehearlns
which set forth alleged errors ana
particularly suggested that the upper
court had erred in it's understanding
OF what the trial judge really mad sa!n
concerning the previous ofenses by
the Standard Oil Co. of Indiana or the
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey.
In the petition for re-hearlng the
reviewing judges arc charged WIN as
suming that Judge Lands attempted
to try and punish the Standard oil
Co. of New Jersey in the original pro-
ceedings which were against .nc
Standard Oil Co. of Indiana On this
point the answer declares II 10 De
matter of no consequence whether the
trial court referred to the New jersey
company or the Indiana company d.
not virgin offender.
THE real point is says the An9"o''
.did tho trial court in imposing PUNISH
ment take into consideration the rcia'i non
between the Standard Oil co. OF New Je'
sev and the Standard OIL Co OF lhdH'ha'
and did it base its fine upon the Weait"
of the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
and it's ability to pay instead of upon
the wealth of the Standard OH co. Oh
Indiana and its ability to pay.
The conclusion stated by the answer IS
..That the enormous fine inflicted "p""
the defendant was because OF the owner
shin of its stock by the Standard on co.
OF New Jersey and because OF the nh"h
ctal stanGing of the latter corporation IS
beyond dispute when the entire opliloh
NJ the trial court Is considered
A large part of the petition for rehear
ing the answer asserts, is q reiteratioh
Of points which 10 one disputes.
On the important question OF knowl-
edge of the lawful rate the answer as
serts that the exceptions OF the govern
ment's counsel are based on misaprre-
heusion OF the record of the case
On the point of the number of offences
which the petition for rehearinE asserted
was obscure in the opinion of the re-
the ruling of the court clearly shows
that the number of offences was regulat-
ed nv the settlements and payments. OF
which there were IS. and not by the car
loads numbt ring 1862, on which the fine
was predicated.
In conclusion the answer which was
prepared by John s. Miller. VIII" togeth-
err with Mortz Rosenthal and Alfred d.
Edgey represents the defendant, asserts
that the suggestion of the government
counsel that the rehearinS by granted IN
order to certify a question to the federal
supreme court Is not proper one be
cause there was division of opinion
among the Judges of the reviewing court
Copies OF the answer of the Standard
Oil Co were served later in the day on
the chief clerk in the office of United
States District Attorney Sims. Tho an
swer will he presented to Judges Gross
cup, Baker and Seaman OF the United
States circuit court of appeals. and VIII
be probably considered at the October
term Of court. which opens oct g.
First Assistant District Attorney James
H. Wilkcrson said to-day:
II am not in position to say what
course the government will pursue. Mr.
Sims hns not returned from his vacation
md whether we reply to the answer or
ask for oral argument will depend on his
decision after he reads the answer. which
J have not seen myself as yet"