New-York tribune., 1909-02-26
BLOW AT ELKINS LAW
Under Chicago Ruling Fine Cannot
Exceed S19O 900.

Chicago Feb. 25-From Judge Landiss fine Of
$4,000 t. possible maximum fine of $4,000 IS
far cry. but il is admitted to he the meaning O. A
ruling made by Judge Anderson in the Tetra OF IN
Standard OIL Company Of Indiana for aIlegad rebat-
ing to-day. The ruling informal, and made FOR
the purpose of epedltiug the hearing and although
the government has the privilege of presenting
further arguments, it is practically certain that
there win be change in the ruling Rhen II Is
formally entered
versed Judge Landis eliminated the vie" Of that
furist that each carIo- of oil which rebate was
accepted constituted separate offence There were
4G2 cf these carIos the freight charges for which
were paid in thirty-siX different settlements Judge
Anderson interpreted the decision Of the Appellate
Court. which, he said served his guide. 70 imply
that these alleged rebates accepted after each OF
the thrty-six settlements constitute the unit OF
offence. The Appellate Court did not so state eX-
picitly, did it clear up the point whether the
alleged offence was continuous the whole
forming 8 single violation OF the Elkins law.
Judge Anderson's ruling severe blow to
United States Attorney Sims and his associates IN
the prosecution. He and his assistant James ii.
NiIkerson. had argued that each shipment, OF
which there were five hundred. making possible
a maximum fine of 100000. constituted an Of
fence. This view Judge Anderson declared ne
could understand. He said that 1t had not
been made plain what comprised shlpment-a
trainload, Carlot a gallon. He saw no reason
why # a trainoad or a carlot were regarded
a separate offence. the matter might h't De
further divided. making hundredweight the unit
q gallon, greatly increasing the nuuhoeF 81
offences and magnlfyng the punishment The df-
vision of alleged offences he said seemed to fall
naturally in thirty-six parts CT counts, eaca
marked off by n money settlement II was n
these settlements that rebates, II any. We're ihdu4
and received
Mr.. Wilkerscn argued that the fine which Wouid
be possible under the courts ruling would serve
merely as a license to a great corporation On
this point Judge Anderson said, in effect
THAT IS a consideration which has 40 weight
with me whatever. l am not concerned VITA u"e
effectiveness Of the statutes but VITA their inter
pre.atfon and application. II the view that have
taken has the effect that has been stated. that Is
q matter for the lawmakers TO consider If their
laws are Inadequate let them supply a remedy
There was little on the surface 20 Indicate the
great porteut Judge Anderson's words, unless 1t
was the intense quiet OF MI Sims or the eXpostu-
latory expression the face Of Mr.. Nilkerson-
Neither would discuss the ruling. but the govern
meuts attitude slI along has been plain. This atti-
tude expressed in veiled form in the unsuccessful
attempt TO have the lands decision reviewed by
the Supreme Court has been that failure TO infict
q huge fine. proportjonate to the earnings Of the
defendant would practically nullfy years u inves-
tiEatlon and prosecution and make the large sums
expended SO much wasted money
4 fine Of SO 600 600 II was believed would SUI
fee to indicate that the government had the power
to deal efficiently with alleged corporate evils
Judge Anderson's ruling to-day. IL is said removes
even that chance The case will be prosecuted to
the end. however The Elkins law Is held by Mr-
Sims to have failed in its greatest test II IS said
TO be doubtful II any other against tie stan
dard viii he brought under :hs act, although other
indictments notably in Tennessee, sti stand
aEain-t Il
Washington Feb 25-"Weu that's one way of
constituting the Law" was the only comment Attor-
ney General Bonaparte would make when informed