The citizen-Republican. (Scotland, Bon Homme County, S.D.) 1???-19??, 1908-08-27

states court OF appeals OF the case
against Standard Oil company OF In
au~thoratively stated the administra-
tion's attempt to save the Elkins' act
and interstate commerce law from be-
coming futile. The filing OF the petit
ton marked the appearance OF Attor-
ney Genera Bonaparte In the case.
Although 1t is not specifically stated
in h petition, 1t was agreed by the
counsel for the government following
h reversal by the appellate court OF
Judge Landis' decision In which a $29,-
Interpretation OF the law given by
Judges Grosscup, Seaman and Baker be
allowed to stand, successful prosecution
of rebate cases against corporations
will be impossible in the future.
Synopsis Of Petition.
A synopsis OF h petition follows:
trial up to the return OF the verdict Of
guilty are the rulings OF the trial Judge
criticized by the court Of appeals. In ali
The point on which the trial Judge is re-
yersed by the court OF appeals relates to
his rulings on evidence n his charge to
the part Of the Standard OH company OF
the54awful rate as q defense.
The court of appeals in It's opinion has
not correctly stated how the judge ruled
on this subject.
It Is said In the opinion that he refused
t. +, admit On II e evidence to the ss effect that q, the 2
the lawful rate was. The fact is, and the
record SO shows. that all evidence tending
& naaw i 6il con9an on r sss I ga9d e tss
the consideration OF the Jury.
rate rat was &C could Sc interposed as 3 de-.
tense, but that it would not constitute a
defense II 1t appeared that the ignorance
the the s shI 9eru or % Of n Wiifui a ure on the he
part of the shipper to resort to the sources
OF which were available.
the correct construction OF the statute on
this subject.
The court of appeals lays down the rule
that it is necessary for the government to
show beyond a reasonable doubt, as a part
of It's case that the shipper actually knew
what the lawful published and filed rate
was.
"Phantom Statute"
The government contends hat his is
an impossible rule; that 1t Is contrary to
the purpose Of the Elkins act; that It is
contrary to the general rule applicable in
criminal cases; that put into effect 1t
would make the Interstate commerce act
"a mere will-o'-the wisp. of legislation, a
substance
The government contends in the petit
ton that the, e t OF appeals s rs ne has mis- nils
dence was admitted, but has also mis-
stated the construction which the trial
Judge placed upon the statute, ana Inat
for this reason there should be a thorough
re-argument upon the only proposition as
to which the ruling of the trial Judge up
to the verdict Of guilty. is reversed.
The government contends that an ex-
animation of the record will show that the
court did not rule out the testimony tend
on the contrary all proper evidence tend
ing to show that the defendant was fg-
norant of the facts with reference to the
legal rate was admitted for the consider
alton of the jury, and that there was am
ple evidence to show that the defendant
did know what the legal rate was.
vigorously and with references to the rec
ord that the reversal of the case. SO far as
the ruling Of the trial Judge with refer
shipper as a defense is concerned. is based
upon a misstatement by the court of the
record in the case as to the admission OF
the evidence and to a misunderstanding
by the court of what the trial Judge ruled
with reference to the admission of eyi-
denee and how ne really charged the Jury
that the effect of the construction OF the
by the court of ap-
peals Is to nullify the interstate commerce
act so far as hippers are concerned; tC
make its enforcement impossible, and u
plunge the country again into the deplor
able condition Of railroad Discrimination
and favoritism which existed prior to it.
passage.
Up to Supreme Court.
The government insists that before lay
Ing GOWN CIIS IaTSn Tule III pTdCLlCdIl1
nullifving the law the court of appeal.
should certify In accordance with the stat
| ute this question to the supreme court fol
Its decision that no court short of the su
| preme court should undertake practically
to wipe the Interstate commerce act from
the statutes.
The petition states before the govern
| ment is realIired to try this case under
| the rigid rule OF construction lad down by
this court. is It not manifestly fair and
| right In the interest not only of justice
in his case, but I'm the interest of a fna
! and definite construction of this import
| ant statute that Judgment be taken OF ths
highest tribunal of the nation?'
The government contends that the
court of appeals In its opinion. has lalt
down an erroneous rule for determining
the. number Of o~ffenses.
The government contends that eacf
| shipment is the basis of a distinct offense
! and that in this case each carload was {
| separate shipment.
The circuit court of appeals has he'll.
that there is but offense for eacI
settlement for freight.
Grosscup to Contrary.
| The government cites against this tn.
opinion of Presiding Judge Grosscup il
+ the case of United States VS.. Haniey. Z
Fed. Rep, 672, 615. In which that judg.
HIAa#