rc-o-t q-r fmrmmmtirm-ni- -kmvmm
1
" C
'
$'
. r
JULY SI, 19ft
The Commonerl
51
rfnm?", yir
Y
THE STANDARD' &IL TRUST
13.
Wednesday, July 22, was ajiotable day for
the Standard Oil trust magnate. Judge "Peter
S. Grosscup, speaking for the United States
court of appeals, roversed tho Judgment of
Judge Kenesaw M. Landls, who fined the Stand
ard, Oil trust $29,240,000. The grounds upon
which Judge Landls decision was reversed are
briefly stated as follows:
That tho trial court abused its discretion
In the post-trial investigation which was held
after tho conviction of thp Standard Oil com
pany of Indiana and by measuring tho amount
of the fine by the ability of tho parent corpora
tion the Standard Oil company of New Jersey
h to pay.
That the trial court was In error In ex
cluding evidence of knowledge and intent on
the part of tho defendant in the acceptance of
rebates.
That the, trial court erred in the manner
of computing the number of offenses. Each
cash settlement and not the shipment of each
car load of oil constituted an offense.
Referring to Judge Grosscup's decision, tho
Chicago Tribune says:
"Tho decision of the upper tribunal, which
was read in court at 10 o'clock In the morn
ing, fairly bristled with picturesquely worded
criticism of Judge Kenesaw M. Landis and his
rulings on the questions involved in the original
hearing. Although Judge Landls's name was
not mentioned, the criticisms plainly were
leveled at 'the trial judge,' and not in any way
involving tho prosecutors."
Following are extracts from the Grosscup
opinion:
No monarch, no parliament, no tribunal of
western Europe, for centuries, has pretended to
have the right to punish except after due trial
under a31 the forms of the law. Can that right
fully be done here, on no other basis than the
judge's personal belief that the party marked
by him for punishment deserves punishment?
If so, it is because the man who happens to
be the judge is above the law.
Would a cab driver, convicted of violating
the city law against excessive cab fares, be sen
tenced to pay a fine that would take his horse
and cab and then leave him a bankrupt many
times over, unable to pay anything but the
least proportion of his debts to his other cred
itors? That under such circumstances the pun
ishment would have been the maximum pun
ishment does not seem possible, for the maxi
mum sentence, put into execution against the
defendant before the court, would wipe but
many times and for its first offense all the
property ,of the defendant.
The interstate commerce act, Important as
that law is, is not the only law under which wo
live.
Can an American judge, without abuse of
judicial" discretion, condemn any one who has
not had his day in court?
Is this case another case, simply because,
instead of being an Individual, the defendant Is
a corporation, and instead of being up for sen
tence under a city ordinance that was intended
not to destroy, but to regulate, the defendant
was up for sentence under a national law that
was Intended, not to destroy, but to promote?
Can a court, without abuse of judicial dis
cretion, wipe out all the property of the de
fendant before the court, and all the assets to
which its creditors look, in an effort to reach
and punish a party that is not before the court
a party that has not been convicted, has not
been tried, has not been indicted even?
The measure adopted by the trial court was
wholly arbitrary; has no basis in any intention
or fixed rule discoverable in the statute. And
no other way of measuring tho number of
offenses seems to have been given a thought
either by the government or the trial court.
Passing over the fact that no word of evi
dence or other information supporting the trial
court's comment is to be found in the record,
would the comment, if duly proven, justify a
sentence such as this one that otherwise would
not have been imposed?
it
WILE
t , "
i Tho casea cited by the fctrvernraeht, Buck
as 'those requiring liquor soUrt, at their peril,
to know whether tho person to whom a drink
is sold is a minor, or wlthU, tho prohibitions
of tho act or not, aro not controlling, nor very
persuasive.
Indeed, that tho sentence was not Imposed
on tho basis of tho facts Just Btated, respecting
the defendant before tho court, but was. -imposed
wholly because of other facts, wholly out
side the record, is disclosed by tho reasons set
out in connection with tho sentence.
Tho Interstate commerce act was Intended
to promote, not to restrain, trade and com
merce to secure fair dealing In commerce
through uniformity, not to put obstructions in
the way of commerce.
Tho beginning of commerce Is constitutional
government and tho foundation of constitutional
government Is tho faith that every guaranty of
our Institutions, no matter what the provoca
tion, will bo sacredly observed.
BIG PROFITS
The Standard Oil company escancd tho
$29,240,000 fine and also profited by Uio ad
vance In oil stock, becauso of tho decKon, the
facts concerning which had leaked in advance
to Wall Street. Tho Chicago Tribune, issue of
July 23, tells tho story in this way:
"While the market for Standard Oil stock
has not been active, it has had an advance of
forty-eight points since last Thursday. Tho ad
vance must have been quite agreeable to John
D., for he Is credited with owning about $33,
000,000 of the $98,538,300 capital stock of
the Standard Oil company, and tho rise is equal
to a little market gift of $15,840,000. There
was something about the movement In the price
of the stock that suggested that some one had
'leaked.' Any one having acquaintance with 26
Broadway, New York, the main office of tho
Standard Oil company, can understand tho re
sources for Information which center at that
particular locality. No one has Intimated that
any one connected with tho appellate court is
in the market, but court Justices have friends,
and the quick advance in Standard Oil stock
would Indicate the latter were either In posses
sion of definite Information, or were good gucss
ers of tho judicial mind."
TT1E PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT
K On July 23 President Roosevelt authorized
the following public statement:
"The president has directed tho attorney
general to immediately take steps for the re
trial of the Standard Oil case. The reversal of
the decision of tho lower court does not in
any shape or way touch the merits of tho case,
except insofar as the size of the fine Is con
cerned. There is absolutely no question of tho
guilt of the defendants or of the exceptionally
gravo character of the offense. The president
would regard it as a gross miscarriage of justice
if through any technicalities of any kind the
defendant escaped the punishment which would
have unquestionably been meted out to any
weaker defendant who had been guilty of such
offense. The president will do everything in
his power to avert or prevent such miscarriage
of justice. With this purpose In view the presi
dent has directed tho attorney general to bring
into consultation Mr. Frank B. Kellog in tho
matter, and to do everything possible to bring
tho offenders to justice."
GROSSCUP'S BAD BLUNDER
It now appears that Judge Grosscup made
several bad blunders in the details of his Stand
ard Oil opinion. The following Is taken from
the Chicago Tribune (rep.) issue of July 24:
Discovery of several apparently Irreconcil
able discrepancies between statements made In
Judge Grosscup's decision in the Standard OJ ,
case and tfca actual facts, tu thown by court
records of the trial, has chauged tho whole
aspect of the case.
At least one of tho thra) important rea-
v
'l I 2.:
NOT BE
i-.ti v
MJiT'
FINED
1. 1 -
sons assigned by tho hlghor court for roversing
, wwu ul ouugo i,anuis appeared to have
boon swept away for tho almplo reason that the
promise upon which it was baaed was not borne
out by tho ovidonco.
Moreover, tho clauao taken from Judge
Landis decision, which was mado tho grounda
for, practically all of tho plcturcsquo denuncia
tion of that Judgo, was shown to have boon or-
roneously quoted or misquoted. Judgo Landla'
decision, If tho stenographic copies aro to bo
relied upon, did not contain tho statomont coa-
corning tho paront body for which ho is scored
so roundly in tho decision of tho court of ap
peals. Tho government consequently will potitlon
the court of appeals for a rehearing of tho case
using these discrepancies as tho grounda for
such a plea, instead of waiting until tho case
is remanded hack to tho lower court for ft now
- trial. Such action substantially amounts to a
request that tho upper court reverse itself and
permit tho $29,24 0,000 to stand becauso of ita
own "errors" in considering tho ovidonco in the
case.
In substance some of tho supposed dlscrop-
uiiviuu Doinioa out oy lawyors yesterday aro: t f
Judgo Grosscup's Opinion That Judge ?'
Landis erred in failing to permit Edward Bo- tf
Kuruus, iramc manager for tho Standard Oil
company, to testify as to his knowlodgo of the
rate charged by tho Alton road.
Tho Court Record Bogardus went into de
tails, denying that ho knew an illegal rate waa
being charged. Judgo Landis admitted this tes
timony over tho objections of tho district at
torney. Judgo Grosscup's Opinion Judgo Landla
erred when ho Indicated that tho Now Jersey
corporation was being fined by saying "tho Now
Jersey corporation was not n virgin offender."
.. Ju,dg0 Landl8' DecisionDid not mention
"Now Jersoy corporation," but said "tho e'efend
ant (tho Indiana corporation) is no virgin
offender."
Judge Grosscup's Opinion Judgo Landla
orred when he held that each shipment consti
tuted a violation of tho law,
Tho Court Record The Standard Oil's at
torneys did not object to this view of tho caso,
although they objected to practically every other
statement of tho court.
Tho Chicago Record-Herald (rep.) says:
Meanwhile lawyers and others who Jiavo fol
lowed the affairs of tho Standard Oil' company
discovered what appear to b3 several discrep
ancies In the opinion of the court of 'appeals.
These aro revealed in a comparison of the
opinion with the record of the case before
Judgo Landis. One castigation of Judge Landla
In tho opinion is that in which the trial Judge
declared to have abused the discretion vested
in him in his arraignment of the Standard Oil
company of New Jersey, declaring that it waa
not a "virgin offender." x,,,
What Judge Landis actually said, accord
ing to the records, was that "this court ia un
able to indulge tho presumption that in thin
case the defendant was convicted of its virgin
offense." The defendant, Judgo Landis' frlenda
point out, was tho Standard Oil company of
Indiana and not the parent corporation. .
Another excerpt from the upper court'a
opinion referring to tho enormity of the fine
says: "There Is nothing in the record in the
way of evidence to show that tho assets of this 8
corporation were in excess of $1,000,000." Tho
petition of the government for an Increase of
tho company's bond sets forth a tabulated state
ment tending to show that In 190C tho Standard
Oil company of Indiana had assets of $27,502,
09 mnd that; its profits that year aggregated
$iO,5iG,082.
' JUDGE GROSSCUP TAKES A TRIP
The following New York dispatch waa
printed in the Chicago Examiner:
New York, July 23. After a trip from Chi
cago on tho Twentieth Century Limited In the
It is unfortunate that this most harsh condemnation of a judge by his higher associates
should have been for his attempt adequately to punish the : 'Standard' Oil Company' From
a New York World editorial.
iirtHttiiffji''tfi
3 i eez