The new South-news., 1909-03-06
STANDARD GIL FISEs72O.OOO
Maximum Penalty il Convict
Cd of Making Rebates.
admitted to he Meaning oa hui,ns
siaOc lis Judge Anderson In Re-
trial OF Famous Case. Hitter
How 60 L. =. Attorney.

Chicago. From Judge Iandis fne
OF s1s.24o.oOo to possible maxi
mum nne OF sT20. 200. Is far cry.
but that Is admitted 20 be the mean
inE OF ruins made by judge Andur-
son tn the retriai OF the Standard OH
Company OF Indiana for alleged re
hatns. The raanE Was informal and
made for the purpose of tSpediuns
the hearing. although the govern
meut has the privilege OF present
lue further arguments. it Is practical
by certain there will Dc no change IN
tho ruins when IL Is formally enter
ed.
The decision of the court OF ap-
peals which reversed Judge i.audis
eliminated the view oi that inrist
that each car lot Of OH on which
rebate was accepted constituted a
separate offonse There were 1902
OF these car lots the freight chsrgos
for which were paid 10 SO different
settlements. Judge Anderson inter-
prcted the decision OF the appellate
court, which he said served IA his
guide. 20 imply that these alleged
rebates accepted after each OF the SO
settlements. constitute the unit of
orcnse Tho appellate court did not
30 state explicitly nor ala it clear MP
the point whether the alleged o'rense
| WAS continuous the whole forming a
single violation Of the Eikins law
Judge AnGerson's ruling WAS se-
we're blow 10 United States District
Attorney Sims aud his assistants In
the prosecution He aud HIS nsl,ist-
ant, James H. Wilkerson. had argued
that cnch shipment of which there
were 500. making possible p s.axi-
mum rne OF $4,000. 500. constituted
an orensc In this vicw Judge An.
ierson declared he could not concur.
He said that II had not been made
| plain what constituted a shipment.
trainload a carload or ii gallon. lie
saw no reason why, II a trasnioad or
car load lot were regarded as a
separate offcnse. the matter might
not be further divided. making u
hundredwcieh, the unit. or gallon
greatly Increasing the number OF OF
fensrs and magnifyinn the punish
mont The division OF alleged OF
fense. he said. seemed to fall natur
ally into thirty-sia parts. or counts
each marked Off by money settle
ment. II was In these settlements
| a.. N.
received
Mr.. Wilkerson argued that the fin
which would be possible under IN
courts ruling would serve merely a
a license to n great corporation.
On this point Judge Anderson SAID
in effect;
That ls n consideration which ha
no weight with me whatever. | ar
not concerned with the effectiveness
of the statutes. but with their inter
prcintion and application. II the vie,
that J have taken has the effect tina
has been stated, that IL matter 10
the lawmakers to consider. II thci
laws are inadequate. let them sup
| ply n remedy
There was little on the surface I,
indicate the great portent of Juds
Anderson low-yolced words. unles
1t was the intense quiet OF Mr.. Sim
or the espostulatory expression OF
the face OF Mr.. Wilkcraon. Nei.he
would discuss the ruling. but the gov
ernmcnt's attitude all along has bee
plain. This attitude. expressed 4
yelled form In the attempt 10 hav
the Landia decision reviewed by fh
Supreme Court. has been that fall
ure to inflict huge fine proportion
ate to the earnings OF the dcfendsn
would practically nnllify years Of In
vcstigation and prosecution an
make the large sums expended =
much wasted money. A fine Of $40
900. 900. IL was believed. would sui
fee to indicate that the goyerpmer
has the power to deal efficiently Wit
alleged corporate evils