Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-11-23
POINTS IN PETITION
Attorney Generals Application
for Oil Case Review.
CASE AN UNUSUAL ONE
Supreme Court Asked to Decide Con-
stitutional Questions.
IMPORTANCE TO THE PEOPLE
Other Cases Dependent Upon Ruling
to Be Formally Presented
Next Monday.

ton for a writ of certiorari in the SD
100000 Standard Oil case, which today
was filed in the Supreme Court OF the
United States indicates that the Depart
ment of Justice is fully aware of the
courts practice of denying 80 per cent of
I such petitions. The court grants these ne
I titions only when constitutional questions
are involved. and the Attorney General
makes strong effort to have it appear
that the present case falls within this
category. Much of the body of the petit
| ton Is devoted to adducing reasons why
the court should review the controversy
/ Attorney General Bona parte calls atten-
/ tiol to the fact that the certificate proc
ess and the certiorari proceedings are
the two methods by which cases can be
| brought from the court of appeals to the
| Supreme Court, the former on the in
itiative Of the lower. and the latter of the
| higher court. Tt" he SAYS, will not be
seriously commended that because this is a
criminal cose the court of appeals would
| have had no right to certify any question
! raised upon this record" and the conten-
| ton is made that if the case could prop
| erly be transferred from the lower to the
nigher court by means of certificaton, ii
can just as properly be brought I'D by
means of writ from the higher court. On
| this point the Attorney General says:
1t may fairly be argued that the pro-
| vision whereby this court may issue GER
| tiorari was inserted in the statute be-
cause Congress did not propose to leave
| 1t wholly within the discretion of cir
| cult court of appeals to determine wheth-
| er the questions before it were sufficient
| ly doubtful and sufficiently important to-
| be reviewed by this court
Supreme Courts Power
The Attorney General also takes the
position that the Supreme Court is
vested by law with authority to order
any case Of which a circuit court of
| appeals has final jurisdiction to be
brought up by certiorari and to deter
mine it in the same manner as if it
had been taken up on appeal or writ of
error by the defendant TT cannot"
he says, "be true that the authority of
| this court to exercise jurisdiction in
| the interest Of the whole people in such
a case as this may be cut off by a con-
| victed defendants choice Of the forum
inferioren."
He declares that the court in previous
decisions has SO clearly construed the in
tent of the appeals provision in the cir
cult court Of appeals act that there would
seem to be little room for doubt that it
mas the same right to review a criminal
| case by certiorar on the application of
the government that it has to review a
civil case
Mr.. Bonaparte also takes cognizance of
the fact that the court of appeals famed
to consider many of the government
assignments of error, and ii is urged that
this failure meant that Judge Lands
had not committed other errors and that,
therefore. the appellate court decision
was an affirmance by ID of the other por-
ton of the Lands decision. 1t is pointed
out. however. that the Standard OH Com
pany takes the opposite view. He adds:
Vital Points Undetermined.
1.-The trial Of this case consumed many
weeks, and cost both the government and
the defendant very large sums of money.
Several of the questions on which the
court of appeals thus 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 of them. The reply informs
US that they will be again raised at
second trial. and yet the court of APP
peals declines either to decide them or
to say what its silence means. A stronger
case could hardly be presented for the
benef1cent Intervention of this court by
certiOrari."
Much attention also is given to the orig
inal right of the defendant to appeal from
Judge Lands decision to the court of APP
peals- Originally" says the petition,
when the defendant was tried and con-
victed, that was the end of it. In giving |
him the right of appeal the law never |
Intended that the appellate tribunal should |
interfere with the sole discretion of the |
trial court in regard to the character or |
amount of the 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 |
tl@t.. Ni,,t
says:
THE trial court committed no error by |
holding the supplemental inquiry. The |
trial court was not proceeding without |
authority, or exceeding its authority, but |
was proceeding under the statute and |
acting 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 sem
tence.
Exceeded Its Authority.
'ln condemning Judge Lands on this |
account the appellate court exceeded the |
bounds of it's authority and usurped !
judicial power not belonging to it. The |
power and discretion to impose sentence
is personal power and discretion COM
mitted 10 the trial judge and cannot be
reviewed or revised by any other
tribunal
Another reason why the court should |
pass upon the case is set forth as fol-
lows:
There are seven other prosecutions in
the northern district of Illinois charging
the same defendant with similar viola
tons of law. There is an indictment in
the western district Of Tennessee against
this defendant, charging similar acts. In
the southern district of California. the
Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fee Railway
Company was convicted of violations of
this statute and sentenced to pay fine
of $3.50, OG0, and that case is now pending
I'm the circuit court of appeals for the
ninth circuit. and raises the questions OF
what constitutes separate offense and |
the proper amount of fine.
THE Standard Oil Company of New York
was convicted in the western district OF |
New York of accepting and receiving con-
cessions similar to those in the case at
bar. That case is now pending on mo-
ton for a new trial, and involves the
same question as to the number OF Of
lenses presented by this record There
are other such cases pending in different |
federal courts and awaiting the final and |
conclusive determinat. on Of the law by
this court
Appears for Whole People.
In conclusion the Attorney General
calls attention to the fact that ne ap-
pears merely as the representative of the
oil mil aynI