Opinion ID: 103352
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: respondents' offers of proof.

Text: What we have said disposes of most of the errors alleged in exclusion of evidence. The offers of proof covering the background and operation of the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Petroleum Code, the condition of the oil industry, the alleged encouragement, cooperation and acquiescence of the Federal Petroleum Administration in the buying programs and the like were properly excluded, insofar as they bore on the nature of the restraint and the purpose or end sought to be attained. For as we have seen the reasonableness of the restraint was not properly an issue in the case. There were, however, offers of proof alleged to be relevant to the cause of the price rise and the subsequent stability of the markets during the period in question. In addition to the foregoing offers, respondents sought to show that the presence of hot oil and hot gasoline had greatly depressed the market from 1932 to early in 1935 when the Connally Act became effective, except for one short period from October to December 1934; that beginning in October 1934 shipment of hot oil from East Texas into interstate commerce had for the first time been effectively controlled; that within a period of six weeks thereafter the tank car spot market rose 1 1/2 ¢  an amount corresponding to the price rise from March to June 1935; that the various factors which primarily affect price were almost precisely the same in the fall of 1934 as they were in the spring of 1935; that the price of gasoline had borne a constant relationship to the price of crude oil from January 1918 to October 1933  that relationship disappearing when the price of hot oil fell below legal crude but reappearing in October 1934, and again in March 1935, when hot oil was eliminated; that gasoline prices were more depressed than the prices of other commodities and the cost of living in 1933 and 1934, and recovered and rose less than such other prices and the cost of living in 1935 and 1936. We think there was no reversible error in exclusion of these various offers. To the extent that they were designed to show that respondents by their buying programs had not raised the spot market prices to an artificial and non-competitive level, these offers of proof were properly denied as immaterial. For, as we have said, the reasonableness of the prices and the fact that respondents' activities merely removed from the market the depressive effect of distress gasoline were not relevant to the issues. And to the extent that these offers of proof were aimed at establishing and evaluating other contributory causes for the price rise and market stability during the indictment period, they were not improperly denied. In the first place, the record is replete with evidence showing the condition of the oil industry at the time of the adoption of the code and during the code period. There was ample testimony bearing on the other causal factors which respondents contend were primarily responsible for the price rise and market stability during the indictment period. Much of the refused testimony was merely cumulative in nature. A trial court has wide discretion in a situation of that kind. The trial lasted about three and a half months. Terminal points are necessary even in a conspiracy trial involving intricate business facts and legal issues. In the second place, the offer to show the market conditions late in 1934 when hot oil was temporarily under control was not improperly denied. There was substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate the depressive market effect of hot oil. While the offer was not wholly irrelevant to the issues, it was clearly collateral. The trial court has a wide range for discretion in the exclusion of such evidence. See Golden Reward Mining Co. v. Buxton Mining Co., 97 F. 413, 416-417; Chesterfield Mfg. Co. v. Leota Cotton Mills, 194 F. 358, 359. Admission of testimony showing the market conditions late in 1934 would have opened an inquiry into causal factors as involved and interrelated as those present during the indictment period. That might have confused rather than enlightened the jury. In any event it would not have eliminated the buying programs as contributory causes to the market rise and stability in 1935 and 1936. And it would have prolonged the inquiry and protracted the trial. As once stated by Mr. Justice Holmes, one objection to the introduction of collateral issues is a purely practical one, a concession to the shortness of life. Reeve v. Dennett, 145 Mass. 23, 28; 11 N.E. 938, 944. And see Union Stock Yard & Transit Co. v. United States, 308 U.S. 213, 223-224. Similar reasons sustain the action of the trial court in limiting the inquiry into general economic conditions antedating and during the indictment period. In conclusion, we do not think that there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court in the exclusion of the proffered evidence. A great mass of evidence was received, the range of inquiry was wide, the factual questions relating to the oil industry and respondents' activities were intricate and involved. In such a case a new trial will not be ordered for alleged errors in exclusion of evidence where matters of substance are not affected. See United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., supra, p. 404.