The Cairo bulletin., 1908-08-22

ney General Amos ]. Bonaparte the
United States Government today fled
its application in the Court Of Ap-
peals. asking for a rehearing of its
case against the Standard Oil Co, of
Indiana in which the decision of
Judge Lands. assessing a fine of $29.-
100000 against the company was re.
yersed. The petition is a lengthy doc
ument, taking exceptions to the re-
yersing opinion on many grounds, aud
using some strong language in places,
Following is a synopsis of
The Petition.
The Government presents its petit
tion in accordance with the rule Of
the court
The indictment in the case was for
violation a. the Elkins Act of Feb
ruary 18th, 1908, making it a crime to
accept a Concession whereby any prof.
elly is transported in Interstate com
merchant less than the published and
fixed rate.
II was proved at the trial that the
Chicago e. Alton Railway Company
transported to East St Louis, III f,
and ST Louis, Mo. 1892 carloads Of
oil.
In all the dealings between shipper
and carrier each carload was treated
as distinct transaction and handled
as a distinct piece of business.
The published and filed rates on this
business were eighteen cents per one
hundred pounds TO East St Louis and
nineteen and half cents to St Louis.
The Standard oil Company actually
settled on the basis of six cents to
East ST. Louis and seven aud a half
cents to st. Louis.
These facts were admitted
The Standard Oil Company inter.
posed the claim in defense that the
Elkins Act was unconstitutional; that
the tariffs had not been posted in two
public places at the stations, and inter
posed many technical dcfenses.
On but a single point involved in
the trial up to the return of the vcr-
diet of guilty are the rulings of the
trial judge criticized by the Court Of
Appeals. In all other particulars his
rulings are sustained
The point on which the trial judgn
is reversed by the Court of Appeals
relates to his rulings on evidence and
his charge to the jury with reference
to ignorance on the part of the stand
ard Oil Company of the lawful rate as
a defense
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 to admit evidence To the effect
that the Standard OH Company dil
not know what the lawful rate was.
The fact is, and the record so shows,
that all evidence tending to show ia
norsnce on the part of the Standard
oil Company was admitted for the
consideration of the jury
This evidence was largely that of
the Traffic Manager of the Standard ,
oil Company. Bogardus, who swDra
to conversation with Hollands, the
rate clerk of the Alton, in which he
said Hollands told him that the rate
had ben filed The Government met
this testimony by a great array of
circumstances which tended to dis |
prove it and the jury found in favor
of the Government.
The trial Judge ruled that Ignorance |
on the part of shipper on what the !
lawful rate was could be interposed |
as a defense, but that it would not |
constitute a defense, if it appeared
that the ignorance was the result of |
neglect on the part of the shipper or |
of willull failure on the part of the |
shipper to resort to the sources of |
information which were available
The Government contends that this |
is the correct construction of the stat |
ute on the subject.
The Court of Appeals lays down tn, |
rule that it is necessary for the GOV
ernment to show beyond a reasonable |
doubt, as a part of its case that the /
shipper actually knew what the lawful |
published and filed rate was
The Government contends that this |
is an impossible rule; that it is con- /
trary to the purpose of the EIkins |
Act: that it is contrary to the general |
rule applicable in criminal cases; that |
put into effect it would make of the |
Interstate Cometee Act "a mere will |
othe wisp of legislation. a phantom
statute, destitute of strength or sub