The Thibodaux sentinel. (Thibodaux, La.) 1905-1912, 1909-03-06
.STAADARDOIL FINEs720,000
Maximum Penalty if Convict.
ed of Making Rebates.
A FAR CRY FROM s2s,24O, 900
Admitted to Be Meaning of Ruling
Made BY Judge Anderson in Re-
trial of Famous Case. Bitter
Blow to U. 5. Attorney.

Chicago.-From Judge Lands fine
of S29,240,000 to a possible maxi
mum fine of $4,000, is far cry,
but that is admitted to be the mean
ing of ruling made by Judge Ander-
son in the retrial of the Standard Oil
/ Company of Indiana for alleged re-
batting. The ruling was informal and
naada tor the purpose Of expediting
/ the hearing, although the govern
ment has the privilege of present
ing further arguments, it is practical
ly certain there will be no change in
the ruling when it is formally enter
| ed.
The decision of the court of ap-
eliminated the view of that jurist
that each car lot of oil on which a
rebate was accepted constituted a
separate offense There were 1,462
of these car lots, the freight charges
for which were paid in SO different
settlements. Judge Anderson inter
preted the decision of the appellate
court, which he said served as his
guide, to imply that these alleged
rebates accepted after each of the S6
settlements, constitute the unit of
offense. The appellate court did not
SO state explicitly nor did it clear up
the point whether the alleged offense
was continuous, the whole forming
single violation of the Elkins law.
Judge Anderson's ruling was Sc.
we're blow to United States District
Attorney Sims and his assistants in
the prosecution. He and his assist
ant, James H. Wilkerson, had argued
that each shipment, of which there
were, 500. making possible maxi
mum fine of s10,000,000, constituted
an offense. In this view Judge An
derson declared he could not concur.
He said that it had not. been made
plain what constituted a shipment
a trainload, carload or gallon. He
saw no reason why, if a traanload or
a cal load lot were regarded as
separate offense, the matter might
not be further divided, making a
hundredweight the unit, or gallon,
greatly increasing the number of of
fenses and magnifying the punish
ment. The division of alleged Of
fense, he said, seemed to fall natur-
ally into thirty-six parts, or counts,
each marked off by a money settle
ment. 1t was in these settlements
that rebates, if any, were made and
received.
Mr.. Wilkerson argued that the fine
which would be possible under the
courts ruling would serve merely as
a license to great corporation.
On this point Judge Anderson said,
in effect:
THAT is consideration which has
no weight with me whatever, l am
not concerned with the effectiveness
Of the statutes, but with their inter-
probation and application: If the view
that l have taken has the effect that
has been stated, that is a matter fol
the lawmakers to consider. If theii
laws are Inadequate, let them sup
ply remedy"
There was little on the surface to
indicate the great portent of Judge
low-vo1ced words, unless
it was the intense quiet of Mr.. Sims
or the expostulatory expression on
the face of Mr.. Wilkerson. Neither
would discuss the ruling, but the gov
ernment's attitude all along has been
plain. This attitude, expressed in
yelled form in the attempt to have
the Landis decision reviewed by the
Supreme Court, has been that fall
ure to inflict a huge fine proportion
ate to the earnings of the defendant
would practically nullify years of in
vestigation. and prosecution and
make the large sums expended so
much wasted money. A fine of $780,
600, 900, it was believed, would suf-
flee to indicate that the government
has the power TO deal efficiently with
alleged .ornorate evils