The Norfolk weekly news-journal. (Norfolk, Neb.) 1900-19??, 1908-08-21
ASK REHEAR|NG
N OIL FINE CASE
THE GOVERNMENT FILES ITS Pc.
Triton IN COURT.
SAYS FINE WAS NOT TOO LARGE

ing to Judge Grosscup, Says Every
Car Shipped Constituted a Crime.
Shipper Must Know Rates.
Chicago, Aug. 21.-The United
States Government today filed its pc.
tition for a rehearing by the United
States court of appeals in the case Of
the government against the Standard
Oil company of Indiana. The petition,
in part was as follows:
The indictment in the case was for a
violation of the Elkins act of February
10, 1903, making it a crime to accept
concession whereby any property is
transported in interstate commerce at
less than the published and filed rate.
1t was proved at the trial that the
Chicago & Alton Railway company
transported to East st. Louis and St
Louis, 1892 carloads of oil.
In all the dealings between shipper
and carrier each carload was treated
as distinct transaction and handled
as distinct piece of business.
The published and filed rates on this
business were Is cents per 100 pounds
to East st. Louis and 1917 cents to st.
Louis. The Standard Oil company ac.
tually settled on the basis of cents
to East St. Louis and ~ cents to st.
Louis.
These facts were admitted.
The Standard Oil company inter
posed the claim in defense that the
Elkins act was unconstitutional: that
the tariffs had not been posted in two
public places at the stations, and in
terposed many technical defenses.
On but single point involved in the
trial up to the return of the verdict of
guilty are the rulings of the trial
Judge criticized by the court of ap.
peals. In all other particulars his rul-
ings are sustained.
The point on which the trial Judge
is reversed by the court of appeals re-
lates to his rulings on evidence and
his charge to the jury with reference
to ignorance on the part of the Stan
dard Oil company of the lawful rate
as defense.
The court of appeals in it's opinion
ruled on this subject.
1t is said in the opinion that he re-
fused to admit evidence to the effect
that the Standard Oil company did not
know what the lawful rate was. The
fact is, and the record so shows, that
all evidence tending to show ignorance
on the part of the Standard Oil COM
pany was admitted for the considera-
ton of the jury.
This evidence was largely that of
the traffic manager of the Standard
Oil company Bogardus, who swore to
a conversation with Hollonds, the rate
clerk of the Alton, in which he said
Hollands told him that the rate had
been filed. The government met this
testimony by great array of circum-
stances which tended to disprove 1t
and the jury found in favor of the gov
eminent.
The trial Judge ruled that ignorance
on the part of shipper of what the
lawful rate was could be interposed
as a defense, but that it would not
constitute defense if it appeared that
the ignorance was the result of neglect
on the part of the shipper or of will
full failure on the part of the shipper
to resort to the sources of informa-
ton which were available.
The government contends that this
is the correct construction of the
statute on this subject.
The court Of appeals lays down the
rule that it is necessary for the gov
eminent to show beyond a reasonable
af-t IF Re, hot
shipper actually knew what the law
full published and filed rate was.
The government contends that this
Is an impossible rule; that it is con-
trary to the purpose of the Elkins act
that 1t Is contrary to the general rule
applicable in criminal cases; that put
into effect it would make of the inter-
state commerce act "a mere will-o'-
the wisp of legislation, phantom
statute, destitute Of strength or sub
stance"
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 distinct of
Tense; and that in this case each car.
load was separate shipment.
The circuit court of appeals has held
that there is but one offense for each
settlement for freight.
The government cites against this
the opinion of Presiding Judge Gross
cup in the case of United States VS..
Hanley, II Fed. Rep, 672 CTS, in which
that judge laid down an exactly con-
trary 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 APP
peals is contrary to the principles of
the Elkins act, and leaves it to the
shipper and carrier to elect for how
many offenses they will be prosecuted
and how much they shall be fined.
The government contends in the pc
tition that the court of appeals has
done great injustice to trial Judge
Lands in misstating what ne did in
connection with tho unpocition pf ba