The Charles Mix new era. (Wagner, Charles Mix County, S.D.) 1???-1911, 1908-09-04
Government Flags Federal Appel.
late Tribunal in Rehearing
Demand.
MAKES wIIL-o'-w1sP OF Law.
Reversal Of Judge Landis' Ruling
Held to Eullify Interstate
Commerce Act.

In q petition bristling with criticism
OF Judges Grosscup, Seaman and Ba-
ksr. the government has asked a re-
hearing Of the Standard Oil case. The
document was filed with the clerk Of
the United States Circuit Court Of Ap-
peals in Chicago.
It describes the reversal OF Judge
Lands $29,24O,O0O fine against the
Standard Oil Company Of Indiana as .
neutrality-suspicious. OF the law" and
asks the right to submit the entire mat
ter to the United States Supreme
Court.
The government contends that the
Court OF Appeals, in its opinion, has
laid down an erroneous rule and that
Presiding Judge Grosscup did Judge
Lands a great injustice" by misstat-
ing what he did in connection with the
imposition Of the fine.
Wipes Act from statute.
The document, signed by Attorney
General Bonaparte and GoyernmentAt-
torneys Frank B. Kellogg, Edwin w.
Sims and James II. Wilkerson, reaches
a climax when it declares that nc court
short Of the Supreme Court should un-
dertake to practically wipe from the
statutes the interstate commerce act.
The proceeding attendant upon the
filing Of the petition was devoid Of
ceremony. The papers were taken to
the Office of the clerk Of the Court OF
Appeals by Chief Clerk William A.
Small Of the district attorneys Office.
Clerk Hallowell, in behalf Of Judges
Grosscup, Seaman and Baker, receipted
for the 5,0OO-word document and later
mailed a copy to each Of the judges, all
of whom are out Of town. MI. Sims
and Mr.. Wilkerson also are away.
Formal hearing on the plea will not
be had for several weeks, as, under the
law, Attorney John s. Miller for the
oil company has twenty days in which
to file an answer. The Appellate Court
judges then may reconsider their de-
cision, assess a fine satisfactory to
them, pass the entire matter to the Su-
preme Court or ignore the govern
ment's pleading.
Jsdgc Lands Defended.
There is no mincing Of words In the
governments defense of Judge lands.
That he did not exceed his discretion
in assessing the maximum penalty il
declared, and it also is vigorously de-
MED that he attempted to punish the
Standard Oil Company Of New Jersey,
as maintained by Judge Grosscup.
The opinion as it stands" the gov
ernment's petition concludes, "erone-
ously states material portions of the
record; does injustice to the trial
Judge; leaves doubtful in a new trial
the rule Of law to be applied. both as
to knowledge on the part of the ship
per and as to the number Of o1enses
appears to be In conflict with h Ian
guage Of the Supreme Court and with
the previous language of the presiding
Judge Of this court, and with the great
weight Of legal authority, and, IL per
united to remain unmOdified, will tend
to encourage disobedience TO law, to
impede the enforcement Of sanitary
statutes and largely to defeat their
purpose"
These C~onfentions Made.
Following are the five principal CON
tentions Of the government:
That Judge lands proceeding, in.
stead of amounting to "a strange doc
trine in A~nslo-Saxon Jurisprudence" II
in accord with the elementary principles
of criminal law.
That the ignorance Of lawful freight
rates, if due to negligence, II not q valid
defense for the acceptance of al unlaw-
full rate.
That each carload shipped at unlawful
rates in the case against the Standard
Oil Company constituted a distinct Of
Tense. and that any other construction
would provide a loophole through which
the guilty could evade justice.
That an innovation" Is created by
the Court Of Appeals in holding that a
defendant cannot be fined more than the
amount of the property he possesses, the
government denying that the penalty inn
posed by Judge lands is excessive.
That the amount of the fine alone does
not necessitate a new trial that il the
Appellate Court holds Judge Lands
shascd his discretion it is called upon to
|. name a proper fine.