Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 41, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 January 1909 — STANDARD OIL FINE DOES NOT STAND [ARTICLE]

STANDARD OIL FINE DOES NOT STAND

Supreme Court Refuses to Review the Case and the Decision of Court of Appeals Holds.

Those wl^e s people who are in t' e habit of saying “1 told you so” can. now come forth and spring the selfpraising sentence, proclaiming their early knowledge that the big Standard Oil fine would not stand. They were right. The fine failed and while the Standard Oil company is given no coat of whitewash by the decision, the government in its efforts to punish that monstre us. corporation for its action in accepting rebates from the Alton railroad and thereby stifling competition, has signally failed. The case is not necessarily out of the courts, but gees back to the very place of beginning In the district court of Chicago, where it may or may not be tried again. From our personal way of thinking the court of appeals and the supreme court were both practically right and Judge Landis was largely wrong. The Standard Oil company was guilty and should have been fined, but there was no just reason for fining it the maximum limit on each count The courts are not established for the purpose of persecution but for reformation and the interests of the country and the welfare of all concerned would have been as well or better served had the minimum fine been imposed. The rebate system was one that was being Indulged In by not only the Standard Oil company but by every other corporation and about every Individual that could get In on the ground floor and secure some advantage over a competitor that was denied the rebate by the carrying company. The Alton railroad company like every other freight transportation company In t’ e United States was required to publish a tariff showing Its freight rates, which were to be alike to all shippers. The testimony proved that In more than 1,400 shipments the Standard Co. had been rebated a part of the r freight, while presumably compe Ing oil companies were required to pay the schedule price and were not rebated. The practice was Indulged In by other corporations shipping large amounts of their product We are of the opinion that If some Rensselaer merchant could have in-' duced the Monon railroad company to haVe refunded half of the freight paid by him he would have taken the money without regard to the fact that his competitor was placed at

a disadvantage that the law aimed to protect him In. Judge Landis evidently did get only wish to break up the rebate system but to put a kink Into the Standard Oil Co., a thing that should not have entered Into the merits of the case. If two persons in Rensselaer are arrested for some offense

and each Is proven guilty there is no trial should fine the rich one the 1 maximum fine and the poor one the minimum fine. If it Is the first convicted offense for each the alm <f the court should be to reform them and this could best be done by as e sing the minimum fine, and common court practice has established that rule. Judge Landis had no pre edent for assessing the maximum fire, and his eagerness to assess it seems responsible for a miscarriage of justke. In the trial before Judga Landis ho refused to hear testimony that showed , knowledge and Intent on the pait cf the company and In figuring up the fine be assessed it against each case of shipment. The court of appeals | held that he should have admitted the evidence in the first case and that ! the company was guilty not in the case of each shipment but In each time that settlement was made on rebates. For example, If three or four shipments were made, and after the last was made the oil company ■ would be given a check for the agr ed rebate on four shipments it would be 1 guilty but one time, but if settlement was made after each shipment the ■ company would be guilty each time. I Another error of Judge Landis, as voiced In the opinion of the court of appeals, was his action In investigating the ability of the Standard 01 Co. to pay the fine after the trial. It is the duty of the court to prescribe the punishment but not to exei cute It, and Mr. Landis again was re- ‘ sponsible for the reversal of the decision because of his ardor In seeing It enforced. All of these reasons by the couit of appeals are technical and do not j effect the guilt or Innocence of the .company being tried. They do ssrve to illustrate the faults of our higher courts, who should be empowered |to rectify errors of the lower courts without annulling the action of the court in* Its entirety. Thus, threourt of appeals should have been able after establishing that* the Standard Oil Co. was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to have Imposed the smaller fine and in the reduced number of cases. Then the supreme court could have passed on it and If there were other corrections to be made that tribunal could have made them and the rebate system would have been broken up. the lower courts would have had a guide for their future action and a guilty corporation would have received a just fine. The Standard Oil Co., stands convicted, clearly and undeniably go, and yet it Is not punished. A brash judge would have persecuted It; a higher, court abuses the public. The told you so" fellows are having their innings.