The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-02-26
NJ CHANCE ID JET
 THAT S29,OOO,OOO Judge Anderson Rules In Favor
 of Standard Oil ARGUMENT IS FRIVOLOUS Ruling of the Judge Is Severe Blow to District Attorney Sims, Who
 Leads the Prosecution In
 the Famous Case.
ARGUMENT IS FRIVOLOUS

Chicago, February 25.-From Judge Landis' fine of 2s,24O, 900 to a possible maximum fine of $720,0Oo is a far cry, but that Is admitted to be the meaning of ruling made by Judge Anderson In the re-trial of the Standard Oil company of Indiana, for alleged re- batting, today. The ruling was in formal and made for the purpose of ex- pediting the hearing and although the goveronment has the privilege of pre- senting further arguments, it is prac- in the ruling there will be no change in tn eruling when it is formally en- tered
 The decision of the court of appeals, which reversed Judge Landis' decision, eliminated the view of that jurist that each car lot of oil on which rebate was accepted constituted a separate of fense. There were 1462 of these car lots, the freight charges for which were paid in 36 different settlements. Judge Anderson interpreted the de- cision of the appellate court, which he said served as his guide to imply that these alleged rebates accepted after each of the 36 settlements constitute
 
 court did not so state explicitly, nor did 1t clear up the point whether the alleged offense was a continuous one, the whole forming single violation of the Elkins law.
 Frivolous Argument.
 The defense's argument that the of fense, if any, was continuous Judge Anderson regarded as anything but frivolous under the decision of the up- per court. However he regarded the settlement basis as the logical one and the government will proceed in the case on that assumption.
 Judge Anderson's ruling was severe blow to United States District Attorney Sims and his assistants in the prosecu- . tion. He and his assistant, James H. Wilkerson, had argued that each ship ment of which there were 500, making possible a maximum fine of s10,000, 900 constituted an offense. In this view Judge Anderson declared he could not concur. He said that 1t had not been made plain what comprised a shipment "a train load, car load or a gallon. He saw no reason why if train load. or a car lot, were regarded as a separ- ate offense, the matter might not be further divided, making a hundred weight the unit or a gallon, greatly in creasing the number of offenses and
 
 division of alleged offense, he saTd. seemed to fall naturally into 38 parts, or counts. each marked off by a money settlement. It was in these settlements that rebates, if any, were made and received
 MT. Wilkerson argued that the fine which would be possible under the court s ruling would serve merely as a license to great corporation.
 On this pOint Iudua Apdaroo, so;d ;a effect:
 Consideration of No Weight.
 That is a consideration which has no weight with me whatever. I am not con cerned with the effectiveness of the stat utes, but with their interpretation and application. If the view that I have taken has the effect that has been stated. that is a matter for the lawmakers to consider If their laws are inadequate let them supply a remedy"
 There was little on the surface to in- dicate the great portent of Judge Ander- sons low voiced words, unless it was the intense quiet of MT. Sims, or the expostulatory expression on the face of MT. Wilkerson. Neither would discuss the ruling, but the governments atti- tude all along has been plain. This at titude. expressed in yelled form in the attempt to have the Lands decision re- viewed by the supreme court, has been that failure to infiict huge fine pro- portionate to the earnings of the defen- dant would practically nullify years of investigation and prosecution and make the large sums expended so much wasted money. A fine of s10,000,000, 1t was be- lieved, would suffice to indicate that the government has the power to deal effi- ciently with alleged corporate evils.
 Judge Anderson's ruling today, it Is said, removes that hope.