The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1910-11-25
Government 7OSTT
FAMOUS OIL SUI
Considered One of the Most Import
ant Suith Ever Fought in the
South.

| Jackson, Tenn, Nov. 1S.-In ruling
kaich required twenty minutes to read,
/ padge John E. Mccall, in the United
tsates court, yesterday afternoon, end
ID the efforts of the government to
lave assessed against the Standard Oil
company of Indiana penalties aggre-
szting more than $30,OOO,OOO. The rul-
k.g, instructing that verdict of not
guilty be returned, came with the con-
klusion of the prosecutions case. The
Srhing, in substance, holds the con-
teations of the defense that, after four
g 8trs, the United States had failed to
lid its structure of evidence other
4 'eo...sssu on sand.
The suit at issue probably was the
most important litigation against one
of the greater corporations ever fought
in. the south. The Elkins law, regard
ing interstate commerce, was violated,
it was. alleged, through scheme and
device" the specific offense charged
being the receiving of freight-rate con-
gcessions.
Judge Mccall, in. his ruling, reviews
athe testimony presented as tending to
Aprove that the consignments which
sfo, med the basis for the suit were
sshipped on orders received from the
IStandard Oil company of Kentucky by
Ehe defendant company from their re-
kfnery at Whiting Ind, to Grand juno
ftion, Tenn, 'for beyond" with freight
Acharges prepaid to Grand Junction, and
kthere taken possession of by the Ken
ktucky corporation.
Also, he points out, the testimony
"tands to proce there was no under
sstanding, expressed or implied, direct
sof Indirect" between the defendant
company and the Kentucky company
/ with regard to rates to be paid; that
Sit was solely a business transaction
between two corporations.
Upon this statement of facts, Judge
/ 'NeCall recalled, he ruled early in the
: 5al that the Indiana company should
be held accountable for the ship
i Irsnts so far as the transportation be-
q md Grand Junction was concerned.
No FThe uncontradicted testimony pre-
ua<-4e i by the government" the ruling
d Jatinues, lis that in the period cover
Il q by the indictment there was 49,
4 INT rate from Whiting to Grand juno
4 On for points beyond, and this rate
#A@J duly on file with the interstate
commerce commission and was legal
q aAe. The testimony is uncontradicted
hat the shipments covered by the in
dirtment was in carload lots from
Whiting to Grand Junction, for be-
s-olid and that the defendant paid this
Fate"
4 Quoting the response of T. M. Cros-
and, an attache of the interstate com
[nerce commission at Washington, who
.as recalled as a witness by the prose-
qtion today, to interrogations of the
& odrt, Judge Mccall points out that
he witness held that the defendant
zsOmpany was authorized to use the 49,
4 I3nt rate, that it was a legal rate, and
lat if inquiry had been made of him
4sy shipper for the purpose of ascer-
& aiming thetlegal tariff, he would have
8 ioted that rate.
. Taking up the much discussed blind
8 fling" it was held by the court this
as done by the carrier, that there
mot one syllable of testimony tend
% to show the defendant company
1isew the carrier was so blind-billing
shipments. But if the defendant
VI known this fact, how could that
eject its rights to avail itself of the
sseent rate which was filed with the
. Interstate commerce commission"
The formal charge to the jury sus-
-1Tsfg the motion of the defense and
structing verdict of not guilty fol-
: wed.