The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1910-05-04
UPHOLDS $4,000
FINE Of OIL
OCTOPUS
Conviction for Accepting Re-
bates is Sustained
ON VERMONT SHIPMENTS
Were Carried by Rutland Road at
Less Than Published Tariffs
of compa0t

Jew York, May 4.-Judge Noyes of
thc United States Circuit Court of
Apreals handed down an opinion yes
tellay On behalf of the bench affirm
inl the conviction OF the Standard
Oil company OF New York in the wes-
TEN judicial district OF this state on
forty counts of an indictment setting
up the acceptance of concessions
from published tariff rates on oil ship
ments over the Pennsylvania railroad
the New York Central and the Rut-
land railroad The Standard was fin
ed $4,000 by the Federal Court of
the Western District and this fine like
the verdict was upheld.
The conviction was based upon the
shipment of a carload of oil for each
count OF the indictment, twenty-eight
counts being for shipments from Ole
an. n. Y, to Rutland, VT, and the
other twelve for shipments from Ole
an to Bellows Falls Vt. The govern
ment established that the Pennsylya-
MIA railroad and New York Central
and the Rutland railroad published
and filed tariffs covering the transpor-
tation Of petroleum at 26la cents a
hundred pounds between Olean and
Norwood and at $2S a tank car from
Norwood to Rutland The indictment
was framed by agreement of attor-
neys fer the defense and the govern
ment-there being no question as TO
the facts-so as to charge that the
three railroads knowingly transport
ed a carload of oil as specified in each
count at less than the published tar
if, and that the defendant company
accepted the concession.
The shipments were those OfAthe
Vacuum Oil company, a Standard sub
sidiary and the lawyers for the Stan
dard undertook to make their case on
a variety of legal theories based on
the contention that the admitted facts
constituted no oifense against the d1l-
kins law, under which the prosecution
was brought.
In writing the opinion for the Cir
cult Court of Appeals Judge Noyes
says:
Now, without reviewing It, it
seems sufficient to say that. in our
opinion, there was evidence in the
case which with all the circumstances
and the differences properly to be
drawn therefrom warranted the jury
in finding:
I. That the defendant before
these shipments-wer made had enter
ed into an agreement with the carri-
ers with respect to the billing, the
rates, the payments Of the freight and
the continuous Interstate carriage Of
the oil
80. That the defendant knew that
the rates which IL paid in accordance
with the arrangement with the carri-
ers amounted to less than the publish
ed and filed rate for the transportat-
ion service.
1T follows then that II the defen.
dant regarded the published rate as
applicable to the route over which the
oil, with its knowledge was shipped
Is knowingly accepted n concession
from such rate. And II It did not sc
regard the published rate, II the filing
of the rate and the entire course oil
dealing between the defendant and
the carriers amounted merely TO a de
vice to circumvent the law, to misleaC
other shippers and to discriminate IL
favor Of the defendant, still none the
less was the concession In violation
of the statute
In our opinion the evidence pas sui
ficent to warrant the jury in'ilndinl
that the defendant knowingly accept
ed a concession, and we find no erro
in the rulings or Instructions regard
ing the defendants guilty know
ledge"