The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1909-01-05
Supreme Courts Denial of Pc
tition in 100000
Case Handicap.
NO DECISION ON MERITS
VIEW TAKEN THAT ACTION WILL
ENABLE BIG CORPORATIONS TO
CONTINUE VIOLATIONS OF THE
LAW.

Washington, D. c., Jan. 5.-The de-
cision of the supreme court yester-
day in regard to the twenty y-nine mill
lion dollar fine of the Standard Oil
company means that the case will have,
to 60 back to the district court at.
Chicago for retrial along the lines OF
opinion rendered by Judge Grosscup
and his associates.
The big fine for the big trust Is
knocked into cooked hat. and if pre-
vious experiences go for anything. the
prosecution of the Standard Oil will be
a good deal of failure in spite of the
utmost efforts of the government to
punish the big combination.
The supreme court it must be re-
membered, did not go into the merits
Of the case at all. 1t merely decided
not to review the decision of the cir
cult court of appeals. Petitions for
writs of certiorari are not usually
granted by the supreme court unless
there is some great constitutional
principle presented or important prop
erty or personal rights are in danger
OF being jeopardized.
Granting of Writ Rare.
Accordingly the granting Of writ
of certiorari in such criminal cases is
rare. and although the government
| was we'll within its rights in asking
for review by the supreme court, that
tribunal was merely Following its GUS
| tom by refusing to grant the writ on
the theory that there were no issues
| sufficiently important to justify a re-
view of the decision of an interme-
diate court.
This leaves the matter Just where it
was when the circuit court of appeals
denied the petition for a rehearing.
The original decision with certain
notifications therefore. stands. and
the case is remanded to the district
| court for new trial.
| When the circuit court of appeals
reversed the decision of Judge Lands
last July it held. first. that the trial
court abused its discretion in the in
vestigation which was held after the
trial itself to determine the ability of
the Standard Oil company to pay the
big fine of $29,2 200. It was also held
that Judge Lands was in error in ex-
intent on the part of defendants in
the acceptance of rebates. The third
| error found by the court OF appeals
| was in the method of computing the
number of offenses. The superior
court held that each cash settlement
was an offense. while Judge Lands de-
termined that each separate shipment
was an offense and he fixed the fine &C.
cordingly.
New Trial Is Next Step.
In denying the petition for rehear
ing which was done in November last
the court of appeals admitted that tes-
timony regarding the knowledge of the
defendant had been admitted physical
" in court. but held that the charge ol
Judge Lands to the jury had the effect
of excluding this testimony. With thi.
modification and some minor ones thu
court of appeals renewed its origina
opinion and decision. the judgment o
the district court being reversed ans
the case remanded with instruction.
to grant new trial to be conducted IL
accordance with the opinion of tn,
court of appeals.
Under Judge Lands original sen
tence the Standard Oil company wa.
assessed $29,24Ots,O. there having beel
1852 separate shipments each of which
he treated as an oifense for which b,
inflicted the maximum f1ne OF $4,000
The court of appeals ordered the cas-
retired on the basis of an offense TO
fCunttnued.on Paee Three.l