Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-10
STANDARD OIL
Anolher Auswsr Filed To-day 10 Inc Famous Tweniy.NIne
 Million Dollar Fine Case
AGAINST PREPARING

Chicago, September 5.-Counsel for the Standard oil Co of Indiana In an answer filed to-day to the petition of the government attor- neys for rehearing of the appeal from Judge Landiss judgment fining the company $2s,240,O0O for viola tions of the anti-rebate laws uphold the decision of Judges Grosscup, Ba- ker and Seaman of the United States circuit court of appeals reversing the judgment and lifting the burden of the enormous fine, as good law amply justified by the record in the case.
 Point by point the answer which 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 charge for the Standard Oil Go, takes up the argu- ments of the petition for rehearing which set forth alleged errors and particularly suggested that the upper court had erred in it's understanding of what the trial judge really had said concerning the previous offenses by the Standard Oil Co of Indiana or the Standard Oil Co of New Jersey
 In the petition for rehearing the reviewing judges are charged with assuming that Judge Landis attempt ed to try and punish the Standard Oil Co of New Jersey in the original proceedings which were against the Standard Oil Co of Indiana. On this point the answer declares it to be a matter of no consequence whether the trial court referred to the New Jersey company or the Indiana com pany as not the virgin offender.
 The real point is,' says the an- swer,. did the trial court in impos- ing punishment take into consider ation the relation between the Standard Oil company of New Jersey and the Standard Oil company of In diana and did 1t base its fine upon the wealth of the Standard Oil Go of New Jersey and it's ability to pay instead of upon the wealth of the Standard Oil Go of Indiana and it's ability to pay?"
 The conclusion stated by the an- swer is That the enormous fine in- fiicted upon the defendant was oe- cause of the ownership of it's stock by the Standard Oil Go of New Jer- sey and because of the financial standing of the lattar corporation is beyond dispute when the entire opin- ion of the trial court is cunsidered.' {
 A large part of the petition for rehearing, the answer asserts, is reiteration of points which no one disputes.
 On the important question of knowledge of the lawful rate the answer asserts that the exceptions of the governments counsel are bas, ed on a misapprehension of the rec ord of the case. On the point of the number of offenses which the petition for rehearing asserted was obscure in the opinion of the re. viewing court the answer contends that the ruling of the court clearly shows that the number of offenses was regulated by the settlements and payments of which there were 36 and not by the carloads numbering 1,462 on which the fine was predi- .cated
 In conclusion the answer which was prepared by John s. Miller, who together with Moritz Rosenthal and Alfred D. Eddy, represents the de- fehdant, asserts that the suggestion of the government counsel that the rehearing be granted in order to certify question to the federal su- preme court is not a proper one be- cause there was no division of opin. ion among the judges of the review ing court,