Evening star., 1909-03-11
STANDARD OIL NOT GUILTY.
Trust Wins Retrial of $29 1000, 900
Fine Case-Evidence Defective.

| CHICAGO, March u.-By instruction Of
Judge A p. Anderson Of the United States
district court, verdict of not guilty was
| returned yesterday. which ended the re-
| trial of the Standard Oil case in which
Judge Kenesaw NJ. Lands. on its first
trial, imposed his famous $29. 10000 fine.
Counsel for the government made a
vigorous fight to the end against the
death blow which threatened the case
when Judge Anderson had informed them
Tuesday that they must bring proof tO
support their charge that the oil COM
| pany had received rebates and shipped its
oil from Whiting and Chapel, Ind, to st.
| Louis at about one-third OF the lawful
| and Stabllshed rate.
| 1t was after Assistant District Attorney
James IL. Wilkerson had argued all the
| the prosecution could not furnish the evil
| dence called for by the court that Judge
| Anderson took the step which dealt a
death blow to the Standard Oil prosecu-
ton under these indictments.
Based on Higher Ruling.
The decisions of Judges Grosscup, Baker
ard Seaman of the circuit court of appeals
reversing Judge Lands with the force of
| the action of the United tSates Supreme
Court in refusing to review the decision
OF the court of appeals played Il most
important part in the disposition of the
case. The Supreme Court held that the
court of appeals had not the power to
dismiss the case for want of evidence, but
| could only point out, as it did, the weak
ness of the proof. which the trial judge
| could take into consideration.
In his announcement Judge Anderson
| took occasion to point out that the gov
| roads for failing to comply with the law
| in filing with the interstate commerce
comni ission fixed. establshe drate the
failure to comply with which had made
the escape of the Standard Oil Company
| from punishment for wrongdoing poSsi-
| BILE.
The several reasons responsible for the
verdict of not guilty. summarized from
Judge Andersons decision are:
That the law in the case as announced
by the circuit court of appeals governs
and controls in the trial of the case and
| is binding upon both court and jury and
that this decision indicated that the gov
ernment had practically failed to prove its
charge.
That the government failed to establish
the very foundation of the charge against
the oil company in failing to prove that
there was any established or fixed rate of
IL cents between Whiting. Ind, and st.
Louis, and Chapel, Ind, and St. Louis,
deviation from which was necessary to a
violation of the Elkins act.
Incompetent Evidence Relied On.
That the government in relying to prove
the 1S-cent rate upon an unfixed shift
ing and changeable classification, in
which only maximum rates were named,
and which classification was prepared
and fixed by the state railroad and ware
house commission, which is a body en-
tirely Independent of the federal author
tiles regulating interstate commerce. was
relying upon incompetent evidence.
That aside from the law and the insult
ficienCy of the evidence. there was a va
ration between the counts in the indict-
ment and the proof, and that while the
government charged one thing in the in
dictment it offered proof about an en-
tirely different thing.
That the fixed rates, assuming that
even the improved 1S-cent rate was an
established rate, had not been properly
posted and published in accordance with
the Elkins law provisions.
This case. gentlemen, as you know, is
criminal prosecution. in which the gov
ernment. or prosecution, is required to
prove the guilt of the defendant beyond
all reasonable doubt. as in all other
cases. said Judge Anderson. in address,
ing the jury.
Now in this trial. as in all trials the
defendant as matter OF law and OF
right and in justice is presumed to be
innocent. and proof must be presented to
estaDNSn tlat he Is guilty-proOf beyond
a reasonable doubt-that is, to such a de-
gree of certainty chat reasonable men will
have an abiding conviction of the de-
fendants guilt.
Now. in this trial, as in all trials, the
cent? -per-1OO- pound rate was an estab-
lished and fixed rate-a lawful standard
binding upon the shipper-is most i'm
portant element Of the charge against
this defendant. and 1t must be proved
beyond all reasonable doubt. II 1t Is a
~ ffa~ how riNI, IL
differ and about which trained and able
judges of the court of appeals disagree
in the light of the evidence furnished at
the former trial. then 1t can hardly be
expected that without additional evidence
l can be satisfied of the fact as being
proved, Or you. gentlemen, can be sure
OF 1t beyond a reasonable doubt
COMMENT LAW AIITa0R lilies