The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-11-24

court decision was an affirmation py # of the other portion of the Landis decison. It is pointed out. however. that the standard Oil Company takes the opposite view. He adds:
 "The trial of this case consumed many weeks and cost both the gov ernment and the defendant very large sums of money. several Of the ques- tions on which the Court of Appeals refused to pass are absolutely vital and the prosecution must certainly fail if the contention of the defendant can be sustained as to any one or them. The reply informs us that they will be again raised at second trial if the Court of Appeals declines either to decide them or to say what It's silence means.= A stronger case could hardly be presented for the beneficient intervention of this court by cer- tiorari."
 Much attention was also given ta the original right of the defendant to appeal from Judge Landis's deeisT ion to the Court of Appeals. fa
 "Originally,"r says the petition, when the defendant was tried and convicted that was the end of 1t. In giving him the right of appeal the law never intended that the appel late tribunal should interfere with the sole discretion ot that trial court in regard to the character or amount of punishment imposed: To do so is to interfere with the discretion of the lower court on the one hand and with the pardon power on the other"
 On this point the Attorney General further says:
 '"rhe trial court committed no error by holding the supplemental inquiry. The trial court was not proceeding without authority or exceeding it's au- thority, but was proceedings under the statute and activity within the limits of punishment fixed by the statute. If so. there was no question of error of law to be reviewed and the appellate court had no Legitimate function to perform respecting the sentence In condemning Judge Lam dis on this account the appellate court exceeded the bounds of It's authority and usurped judicial power not be- longing to it."
 Another reason why the court should pass upon the case Is set forth as follows:
 There are seven other prosecutions in the Northern district of Illinois, charging the same defendant with similar violations of law, There is an indictment in the Western District of Tennessee against this defendant, charging similar acts. In the South ern District of California, the Atchi- son. Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company was convicted of violations of this statute and sentenced to pay a fine of $330.000. and that case is now pending in the Circuit Court of Ap- peals for the Ninth Circuit and raises the questions of what constitutes a separate offense and the proper amount of fne."
 In conclusion the Attorney General calls attention to the fact that he ap- pears merely as a representative of the whole people and he says that his only purpose is to suggest to the court that the case Is of such a nature that. in the interest of the entire country, 1t should be reviewed and authorita- lively determined by the highest court of the nation.
 It Is understood that the petition will be formally presented to the court when it reconvenes next Monday, but 1t probably will not be taken up for some time thereafter.