The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-07-23
Separates ORenses.

Separates ORemse@.
 Taking up the question as to whether each shipment constituted a separate offense by which interpretation of the law Judge Landis imposed the largest fine in the history of the Standard oil Company. the court has this to say:
 The gist of the offenss is the &C., ceptance of a concession irrespective of whether the property involved was carloads train-loads, or pounds. Has shipper fully and finally accepted concession when he has done nothing more than to agree with the carrier that less. than the published and nIed rates shall be paid for the transporta- ton of his property? Is 1t not neces- sary that the transactions be closed by actual payment of the lower rate? In the rebate. the shipper paid In :he first instance the full rate to the carrier and afterwards received back a part. Manifestly the offense of accepting a rebate has not been committed unless the shipper has taken back a part of the first money, whereby his property has been transported at less than the lawful rate. Proof that he agreed to accept a return of a part of the full rate-stopptng there-would not sun port an indictment for accepting a re- bate. Such an agreement is not bind ing; and at any time before it's conn plete conclusion the shipper may re- pent and insist upon the carrier keep ing the whole amount. The concession differs from the rebate only in this that in conceding the shipper, instead of paying the full rate and receiving back a part. merely settles for the difference. The result Is the same---tha property Is transported for the same amount less than the lawful rate. And there Is no basis in the statutes for holding that in the case of accepting a fAva 4hA twa mated, and the door of repentance is closed at any moment earlier than in the case of accepting a rebate.
 So proof that shipper has agreed to accept a concession, stopping there will not support an indictment for &C., cepting concession until the intended wrong becomes an accomplished fact.
 The number of offenses in the pres ent case should have been ascertained in accordance with the principles. The measure adopted by the trial court was wholly arbitrary--had no basis in any intention or fixed rule discoYerable in the statutes. And no other way of to have been given a thought. either by the Government or the trial"
 The Monumental Fine.
 As to whether Judge Landis in conn posing the monumental fine abused the discretion vested in the court, the court opinion continues:
 Briefly stated the reason of the trial court for imposing this sentence was because before convicting and before sentence it is brought out that the capi- tai stock of the Standard oil Company of Indiana, the defendant before the court was principally owned by the New Jersey corporation, a corporation not before the eourt-the trial court adding (upon no evidence however to be found on the record and upon no information specifically referred). that in concessions in the character for which the defendant is before the court had been indicted, tried and convicted the New Jersey Corporation was not a virgin offender.
 'Is a sentence such as this sound7 can Q court without abuse Of Judicial