Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1908-09-10
STANDARD ANSWERS
GOVERNMENT 5 P|EA
Files Reply to Petition Tor Re-
hearing Of Case Tried Before
Judge Landis
ANSWER IS MOST VIGOROUS
ANSWER IS MOST VIGOROUS
Government Attorneys Charged With
Laborins Under MISUNDERSTANDING
Defense Claims Lands Based Exor-
bitant Fine on ownsrship Of indiana
Company by Standard Of New Jersey.

Chicago, Sept 10.--Counsel for the
Standard OIL Company OF Indiana, In
the answer filed today to the petition
Of the government attorneys for re-
hearing of the appeal from Judge Lam
dis Judgment fning the company $20,-
100000 for violations Of the anti-rebate
laws, uphold the decision OF Judges
Grosscup. Baker and Seaman, Of the
United States circuit court Of appeals.
reversing the Judgment and lifting the
burden Of the enormous fine as good
law and amply justified by the record,
in the case.
Point by point the answer takes up
the arguments Of the. petition for
rehearing, which set forth alleged err
rors and asserts that the suggestion Of
government counsel that a rehearing
be granted in order to certify the ques-
ton to the federal supreme court IS
not proper one because there was no
division Of opinion among the judges
reviewing the court.
Which Concern Was Punished.
In the petition for rehearing, the re-
viewing judges are charged with as
suming that Judge Lands attempted
to try and punish the STANDARD Oil
Company Of New Jersey in the original
proceedings, which were against the
Standard Oil Company OF Indiana On
this point the answer declares IT to be
matter Of no consequence whether
the trial court referred to the New Jer-
sey company or the Indiana company
as not the virgin offender. !" The real
point Isl says the answer. did the
trial court in imposing punishment
t. w into consideration the relation be~
ssween the Sts.<- .-krsf,sf Comma nv IN i
New Jersey and the 81 a,,Na ara fliis%
Company Of Indiana, and d-l hasa
its fine upon the wealth OF the S.,,,y5s
ard OH Company Of New Jersey and
its ability to pay instead OF upon the
wealth OF the Standard Oil Company
Of Indiana and its ability to pay.
To determine this question tho
Standard OH attorneys assert that e
few sentences extracted by govern
ment counsel from the words OF Judge
Landis are not sufficient, and quote at
length from Judge Lands opinion to
show that he referred to the New Jer-
sey corporation as "the real defendant
and to the Indiana company as the
nominal defendant"
Fine Based on Jersey Ownership.
The conclusion stated by the answer
Is "tflat the enormous fine inflicted up-
on defendant was because Of the own
ership of its stock by the Standard
Oil Company Of New Jersey and be-
cause Of the financial standing Of the
latter corporation Is beyond dispute
when the entire opinion of the trial
court is considered.
A large part Of the petition for .
rehearing, the answer asserts, ts
reiteration of the points which no one
disputes and counsel for defendant
continue their attack on a portion BY
declaring that the government attor-
neys are mistaken in their interpreta-
ton Of the Armour case cited in the
petition and in suggesting that the re-
viewing court is in conflict with the
supreme court.
On the question Of knowledge Of the
lawful rate on the part of defendant
shipper, which was one Of the points
on which great emphasis was laid n
the petition for re-hearing, the ans
WeF dSSSI Us lHdI Luc SACSpIlOAS VI wv
ernments counsel are based on mis9p
prehension of the opinion and the rec
ord of the case. The exclusion Of GER
tain evidence and the question Of in-
tent are discussed in detail. in which
It is asserted that the reviewing court
was justified in the ruling which IT,
made. On the point of the number Of
offenses, which the petition for re-
hearing asserted was obscure in the
opinion of the reviewing court, the
answer contends that the governments
counsel has raised cloud whore there
is none and that the ruling Of the court
clearly shows that the number OF Of
fenses was regulated by settlements
and payment, OF which there were
thirty-six, and not by the car loads
numbering 1,462. on which the fine was
predicted.