The Holly chieftain., 1908-08-28
ATTORNEY GENERAL BoNAPARTE
PETITIONS COURT OF AP-
PEALs FOR REHEARING.
UPHOLDS LANDIS' FINE
ALLEGES THAT JUDGE CROSS
CUPS DECISION ERRS AS TO
STATUTES AND EVIDENCE.

Court of Appeals of the case against
the Standard Oil Company of Indiana
was filed Friday and represents, 1t Is
stated, the administration attempt 10
save the Elkin's act and the Interstate
Commerce law from becoming futile
The filing of the petition marked
the appearance of Attorney General
Bonaparte in the case, as well as thaI
of Frank b. Kellogg, who is a special
assistant to the attorney general. Be
sides these two names the petition is
signed by Edwin w. Sims, United
States district attorney at Chicago, and
Special Assistant James H. Wilherson.
both Of whom presented the govern
ment's side of the case in the original
hearing before Judge Lands who ad-
mnistered the famous fine of $29 ,24O,-
600 against the defendant.
May concern, which through cor
poratc organization and railroad IA
voritism has established gigantic
monopoly in territory with a popula-
ton of millions and concentrated
business many thousand times as large
as that carried on by the ordinary citi-
zen, plead in mitigation of punishment
when called to account for its viola
tions of the law. that the number of
offcnses which it has committed and
for which it is required to answer.
has been in proportion to the maGnl-
tude of its business"
This is the question which Attorney
General Bonoparte and associate coun-
sci put sQuarely to the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals in their petit
tion for a rehearing of the case against
the Standard Oil Company of Indiana
is this court to be understood the
petition asks. "as announcing the rule
that in case il does not agree with the
trial judge as to the amount Of pun
ishment which should have been i'm
posed, the sentence will Re reversed
on the ground that it was an abuse of
judicial discretion?
every day defendants are fine0
many times more than the value of all
the property they possess.
rs the principle different because
the amount involved is measured by
hundreds of dollars in one case and by
millions in the other?"
The profits of the oil company, $685.
5S3,20S in four years, are cited as am
ply justifying Judge Lands in doing
precisely what he did. The petition
says:
THE trial judge did that which is
to inform himself as to who the de
fendant was; as to whether the crime
committed embraced more Of wicked
ness than the indictment charged; or
whether on the other hand, there We're
circumstances of mitigation
The petition asks:
MAY a shipper successfully pleaG
ignorance of the lawful rate, when that
ignorance is the result of his own neg
ligence or of his failure to avail him
self of the sources of knowledge at
his commando
To permit such defense, the petition
says, "is to make Of the law a mere
willo the-wisp of legislation, phan-
tom statute destitute of strength or
substance"
In conclusion. the government di-
rects attention to the following con-
tentions:
THAT the opinion of this court is
based upon a misconception of the
record with reference to the rulings
of the trial judge as to the admission
of evidence tending to show want OF
knowledge, and with reference to his
construction of the statute on tnat
subject, and the theory on which the
case was tried.
mat lue Vi Stdl-
ute by this court, imposing no duty on
the shipper and permitting defense
of ignorance to be made without regard
to the negligence of the shipper, is
contrary to the language of the statute
and to its purpose and seriously im-
pairs the efficiency of the act.
THAT the criticism of the trial Judge
for abuse of discretion rests upon
wrong assumption of what the trial
judge actually did and assumes that
he attempted to try and punish the
Standard Oil Company of New Jersey
THAT the ruling stated in the opin-
ion to the effect that fine is exces-
sive when it exceeds in amount the
ability of he defendant to pay is an
innovation in criminal law.
That in short the opinion as it
stands enormously states material
portions of the record; does injustice
to the trial Judge; leaves doubtful in
new trial the rule of law to be ap-
piled, both as to knowledge on the
part OF the shipper, and as 20 the num-
Der OF offenses; appears to be in con
flict with the language of the Supreme
Court and with the previous language
of the presiding Judge of this court,
and with the great weight of legal au-
thority; and, If permitted to remain
unmodifled, will tend to encourage dis
obedience to law, to impede the en-
forcement of salutary statutes and
largely to defeat their purpose"