Albuquerque citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1907-1909, 1908-08-21
nullifying the law the
court of appeals should certify I'm


ton to the supreme court for its de-
cision; that no court short of the SUI |
preme court should undertake prac-
tically to wipe the Interstate Com |
merce act from the statutes.
The petition states before the gov
ernment Is required to try this case
under the rigid rule of construction
laid down by this court. Is it not
fair and right in the inter-
est not only of justice in this case.
but in the interest of a final and def
mite construction of this important
statute. that judgment pe taken of
the highest tribunal of the nation2"
The government contends that the
court of appeals in its opinion, has
laid down an erroneous rule for de-
termining the number of offenses.
The government contends that
each shipment is the basis of a dis
tinct offense. and that in this case
each carload was a separate ship
ment.
The circuit court of appeals has
held that there Is but one offense for
each settlement for freight.
The government cites against this
the Onion of Presiding Judge Gross
cup in the case of United States VS..
Hanley, II Fed. Rep, 672, 675, in
which that Judge laid down an ex-
actly contrary rule to the one which
he laid down in the Standard OIL
case.
The government contends that the
rule laid down by the court Of ap-
peals is contrary to the principles of
the Elkins act, and leaves 1T to the
shipper and carrier to elect for how
many offenses they will be prosecut-
ed and how much they shall be fined.
The government contends in the
petition that the courf of appeals has
done a great injustice to trial Judge
Lands in misstating what he did In
connection with the imposition of the
tine on the Standard on company.
The circuit court of appeals in its
opinion charges that Judge Lands
assumed to fine the Standard Oil
Company of New Jersey, and impos-
ed the large fine for the reason that
he was satisfied that the Standard OIL
Company of New Jersey was not
virgin offender"
The government shows In Its petl-
ton that Judge Lands never referred
to the Standard Oil Company OF New
Jersey in this connection and that
the language used was used in con-
rection with the Standard Oil Com
pany of Indiana, and that nowhere
were the proceedings directed or pre-
tended to be directed against the
Standard OIL company of New Jer-
sey.
The government takes issue with
the court of appeals that Judge Lam
dis proceeding in this case amount
ed to a strange doctrine in Anglo
Saxon jurisprudence" and says that
the proceedings of Judge Lands are
in accordance with the rule of pro-
cedure pointed out by Mr.. Bishop in
his work on criminal law as one OF
the elementary principles of that ju-
risprudence recognized from the earl
lest days.
The government takes Issue with
the circuit court of appeals as to Its
proposition that a defendant cannot
be fined more than the value OF the
property which he possesses and
states that this rule is an innovation
in criminal law and II applied would
destroy the enforcement of most
statutes.
The government claims that the
facts before the court of appeals JUS
| iify the imposition of the penalty in
d,cted by the trial judge.
1t appears from the record in the
circuit court of appeals that the ne
profit of the business of the stand
| ard Oil Company of Indiana, the cor
poration that Judge Lands fined, fol
the years during which the violations
of the law for which 1t was convicted
were committed and including the
year in which it was indicted amount
ed to sS3,5S3.2OS.SO.
On this point the petition states:
1--WE respectfully call the attention
OF the court to the statement OF th'
Standard Oil Company OF Indiana ol
! file in this case, referred TO by th'
court In its opinion and treated a!
proper for consideration in determin
! ing whether or not the penalty wa
! excessive.
That statement shows, with refer
ence to the assets and liabilities ant
| profits of the Standard oil Compan!
| of Indiana, the following:
STANDARD Oil Company. (Indiana.
Year 1899: gross assets, s15,l54,
4Os.16; liabilities. 25.OO4S31.O5; prof
/ it's, $4,195,75
Year 1900: gross assets, $16,077,
OlS.24; liabilities. $2,735,695.O9; prof
its, $4,9S1,571.04.
Year 1901: gross assets. sl6,435,
2Is.7l; liabilities, s2,963.41T01; prof
I its, $5,379,s4S.55.
Year 1902: gross assets, 3l9,794,
673.94; liabilities, s3.3O6, ,520.64; prof
! its, s7,5l5, ,9O6.6O.
Year 1908: gross assets. 321,277
649.7O; liabilities, s4.535,2 5,206.12; prof
its, sS,753,41O.2S.
Year 1904: gross assets. $20.087,
7OO.64; liabilities, 3S,O52,497s2; prof
\ its, !7,792,O39.24.
Year 1905: gross assets. $20,743,
! 361.97: liabilities, Sass. 5.95762; prof
its. $6521,67653.
Year 1906: gross assets. S27,5O2,
OS9.S6; liabilities. s3,17S,152.76; prof
its, $1O.516. 6.082.75."
The punishment therefore Is n
! more severe than that is inflicted up