The Ordway new era., 1908-08-28

CASE AGIIH
S1AA0lI
ATTORNEY GENERAL =.
PETITIONS PETITIONS cousr n
PEAls FOR asHs.s
hH00Aa -
upH0LOs LANDS
ALLEGES THAT ,uue, |
CUPS DECISION ERR, !,
STATUTES AND sy,nr,,


chicago,-The governn,r,
Tor n rehearing by the. Ual,.
Court of Appeals Of The sr's ~.
the Standard Oh CompaD,' ~ !,
was filed Friday and repi,,,,
stated. the administering, N.
save the Elkin's act and d. n,
Commerce law from besonss
The filing Of the petids
the appearance Of Attorpsy b
Bonaparte in the case, as =, \
OF Frank b. Kellogg. who Il,
assistant to the attorney ss,s,
sides these two names ,hs VI
signed by Edwin ". Sin,
States district attorney al CsI,s
Special Assistant James II. W.
both Of whom presented IL. r
ment's side Of the case ia d.
hearing before Judge Land. n
ministered the famous fine d n
600 against the defendant
MAY a concern. which ,srqt
porate organization and a.
voritism has established =
monopoly in a territory viii n
tion OF millions and cort,,n
business many thousand liraut
as that carried on BY the ura,,J
zen. plead In mitigation Of wi,
when called TO accoun, for iu
tons OF the law. that the to
offenses which II has eonnsA
for which II is required % u
has been in proportion to as Z
tude OF its business"
This is the question xhlth ii
General Bonoparte and ascend
sci put squarely 10 the unlA
Circuit Court of Appeals in aaJ
ton for n rehearlng Of the eisi
the Standard OIL Company d II
is this court 10 be unterEM1
petition asks. "as announcing y |
that In case II does not asIe III
trial Judge as TO the amouii I
ishment which should have Nal
posed, the sentence will t. NJ
on the ground that 1t was aa "
judicial discretion?
"Every day defendants m !
many times more than the rtat
the property they possess.
rs the principle diffeisii y
the amount involved Is nsisas
hundreds OF dollars In one e,s q
millions In the other!
The profits Of the oil eonpt!
6s3, POS In four years. are ei'a :
ply justifylng Judge lands :
precisely what he did. lh :
says:
"The trial Judge did that "a
done in every criminal case. M!
to inform himself as to sho =
fendant was; as TO whether ~
committed embraced more q .
ness than the Indictment esiis'
whether on the other hand 9a'
circumstances of mitigation
The petition asks; .,.u,
"May n shipper suecess'als Y,
Ignorance OF the lawful Iae, y !.
Ignorance is the result Oh ns y =.
iirence or OF his failure TO y.
self OF the sources Oh hu0'"
his command?' ~,
To permit such deiense, wv y.
says, "is to make OF the a0 n'
will.o,.the.wisp OF Legislation. ~.
tom statute destitute Of s'i1
| substance" ...v.,,,
Tn conclusion, the gU.'I,
rects attention 10 the l0'"''
tentions: , =, mi,
b..ed upon a misconeeE,isoa 10
record with reference 70 81 y. !,
Of the trial Judge as to tae y
of evidence tending 10 1,s. snU.
M knowledge. and with a,,,,a reie,sa'
construction of the s.a.u" w :
subject, and the theory w
case SHAT mtI the Interpretation o. !,
ute by this court, imposing ..I1s, =, ,
the shipper and permi'uiI,1s .nI,so'
to the the negligence Of the =, y \
contrary to the language ., ,a,i, \
and to Its purpose ana a. s.,s -,
paifs the efficiency OF tns ~ -, !,
"That the criticism MOI, Of the ns,t' \
for abuse of discretion ...ss, se,'
wrong assumption Oh OIL, Vass sss,
;ndge actually did ana a'I, \
he attempted to try an% ~ NJ
Standard OIL Company ,oa a. in IN
"That the ruling sta!ed ,,ns NJ
ion to the effect that q J.. l'sr ~
sive .T y when it exceeds N ~ ~
sbility sian Of the defendant nd, IT, 70
innovation In criminal .a. '1" oniu
aThat. in short the s,stes Ups'
portions Of the record; re, vas I'D i
to the trial judge; iea,Is =, lsv
a new trial the rule ., Q, !, ,,,isds lsh
piled, both as to snUTt IND as i
part Of the shipper, anu ~ 70
her Of offenses; appear, =, Il N
flict with the Language .or,ou vi n
Court and with the pr p,et Of
Of the presiding 1nass; ss;sht 4 {
and w with the great welsnsd s'eilaed
thority; and, II peI'1,,,,lc ~ e,lc
unmodified, will tend 70 t,mned ned
obedience to law, TO >, ,ns sts
forcement Of salutar;y n l;r n,,r' Sr
isrseiy to defeat their pun