‘l
., the'gri'ffs had not been outed. in two- examinatlo
. Emub
r.-.
, fused to adnrit evidence to the effect
, admitted.
‘ the opinion 9 the are
‘3 rate is regarded as the vital point.
"13K ‘ "
refill! 1., his 1‘)
,. A - 'lr
......
We caii
aw; rt ‘. May”
the person reuirni:
any: "
$5. op W”
ng the séeond largest number
RTH GROCERIES FR
70'“ 5'4- V‘
Avril. . W
$ .00
«Wiping—w.-. W+W.
ber 23d, taken from
“0
ii returning the third largest number
I.
5:
r
lute y iree to the person returning the largest number of Wrappers, before Septem-
a
.00 WORTH GROCERIEB FREE
cheerfully recommend to our customers a high-grade laundry SOap such 35
Having given many other brands a fair trial we decided that I
the Health Brand Coffee tn one-pound cans. is the absolute per-
fection of Breakfast Beverages.
Dr. Wiley may overestimate the danger from food preserva-
tives, but why take any chance of poison when you can buy the
Health Brand Food Products from us with two guarantees of
‘ absolute Purity—ours and the packers' .
Won-mom
a...
cop
Ask us for it when Ordering.
ire United Grocery ompany
M. EPSTEIN, Proprietor.
A
a
l
Governors}: if???” for lie-
(Coutlnued‘ From First Page).
whereas the opinion of the court of
appeals states that Judge Landls rc-
that the Standard Oil Company did but
know whet the lustful rate was the
record ref proceeding tin the‘ lower
Mt also" that such evidence was
Although the government points
out what it (insiders other errors in
clinic court. the
allegation that the tandurd Oil did
know that it was not paying the legal
if
to? A
that all «inches tending to show 15: lof evidence and how he really charged
:nomnce on ‘the part: of the Standard tho jun
ibi‘ »
Oil Company was admitted for
. consideration of the jury
- .This evidence was ”an.“ that of tion of the statute announced by thc'
the irafilc manager of the Standard li‘
Oil Company, Bdgnrdus who swore to
a conversation with Hollands. the raft-
clerk of the Alton. in which he said
Hollands told him that the rate had
been filed. The government mot thi:
testimony by a great array of ,circum
stances which -iendcd to disprov:I it
and the jury found in favor of tin
government.
The trial judge ruled that ignorance
on the part of a shipper of what the
lawful rate was could be interposed as
a defense, but that it would not con
The government strenuously con
lands that the effect of the construc
ourt of Appeals is to rruillh lhiI in-
torsiaic ('oirimorcc Act so far as ship-
pers urc concerned; to make its on ‘
forcment impossible. and to plunger
the country again irrto the dcpiornblcl-
condition of railroad distrlminationa
Irud favoritism which existed prior to
its passage
The government contends that the
Court of Appeals has no right to place
this construction upon the statute in.
‘he face of the fact that the vcry (pres.
:ion involved in this case has been ex-
)rossly left open by theI SupremeI
Court in the Armour Packing (‘onr-
sumed to line tits Standard Oil (‘mu-
puny of {\ow Junior, and imposed the
largo ilntI l‘or llrc‘rcuson that ho w as
sniisllwi that tho Standard Oil (‘orrr-
puny ol‘ Now Jory was not a “virgin
offender,"
”'llw aorcr rrrunt shout; in its pt ii
lion llrtrl in god ndld’ncrcr refined
to the Sluhdnrd l (‘ompuny of N. \I.
.lcr'sey in this connection and that
the language used was uscd in con
traction with the Standard Oil (‘onr
puny of lrrdiurra. and that uouhcro
Were the proceeding s directed or pro-
‘tcrrdsd to bx directed nuzrlnsi the
Standard Oil (‘oprparryof New Jersey,
»'l‘lio government takes issurI Willi
‘thr (‘ourt ol Appeals that Judge Li‘ilh
dis' p room ding in this case “.rrrrouutcil
in it strange doctriruI iu Anglo- Saxon
stltute a defense if it appeared that
the ignorance was the result of neg-
lect on the part of the shipper or of
wilful failure on the part of the ship-
per to resort to the sources of in
formation which wereI available.
I with the evidence introduced at the
‘ trinim Mills it can he
3
held Itha endani: did not have
surrey mall.
at its own- acts then
succeshful prosecutions of similar-
pany case. recently decided by that Jlli‘iufilil’udrllr‘r 'und srns that the pro
court. The precise question involved t‘cedlugs ol luch larrrdis are in no
in This Case was stated in the Su- -00r(lurrco uiih the rule of procedure
iremo Court in that case. it was not pointed out h) “r lilshop in his work
decided hi the Supreme (‘gourt how on criminal law as one oi the t‘li‘mt‘ii
ever because it “as not lrrvolrcd, but tury pr lnciples of that jtrrlsprndcnct
cases is regarded as impossible.
{‘3 court.
.3 The government presents its petlo
tion in accordonce with tholrule of the
The indictment in the case was for
The government contends that tlrls
s the correct construction of the stat-
ute on this subject.
The Court of Appeals lays down the
r as a dis nc‘t transaction and handled
."I‘Ilihgl are sustained . .,
f” .. his t”filings on evidence and was.
a violation iii-Abe. atlas: Act or room
i ary 19th. 1293., main it a crime to.
acceptrwconcelsi’on w erc‘by any prop-
rule that ii is necessary foi" the govern-
ment to sirow beyond a reasonable
doubt as a part of its case that the.
omnszaran ted in interstate 'corn- shipper actually knew what the law-
-'mecce_ at. less hair the publloiled and mi published and filed rate was.
‘Iflléd Irate - 3' The government contends that this
is an impossible rule; that it is con—
Itmps .prpmdr‘at the. trial that the
rnry to the purpose of the Elklns Act:
Crieago in Alton Railway Company
“than! rted i0 38!! 3’6 Louis. lllinols that it is contrary to the general rule
\‘aad h‘Louiu, Missouri. i192 carloads applicable in criminal cases; that put
of bli‘ ’ """ into effect it would make of the In-
terstatc Commerce Act “a more will-
o’-thewlsp of‘ legislation a phantom
statute.‘dé‘stitute of strength or sub-
stance "
The government contends in the pe-
tition that the court of appeals has
misstated not only the record as to
what evidence was admitted. but has
also-misstated the construction which
the trial judge placed upon the statute,
and that for'thls reason there should
och “toss Lents. be a thorough resurgument upon the
insurgent; were Manned only proposition as to which the ruling
Thaw will“! Oil WINDY inter- of the trial judge up to the verdict of
‘posed tile‘ claim in defense that the El "silty. ii reversed
klns Act was unconstitutional; ‘thar' The government contends that an
of the record will show
ipiaces at the sta nit. and in- that the no rt did not rule out the
termed many technical defenses. itestlmony tending to show want of-
' l Oh but aslngle point involved in the‘knowledge. but that on the contrary
..}rill up to the return of the verdict all proper evidence tending to show
4, ' in all the dealings between shipper
and carrier each carioad was treated
orb dist lice piece of- tar-irres- .
Th‘emuhjiahed andfiled rates. on this,
Ebusluess were eighteen cent per one‘
‘lluhdredrjponpds to: East St. Louis and'
i linemen and a half cents to St. Louis.
'1‘th Shandarsimml company actuall-
:ecttled onrthe basis «of tilt cents to
t St. Louis and ‘saven and a half
~‘ of sulltymre the rulings of the trial that the defendant was ignorant of
criticized by the Court of Ar)- the facts wt th reference to the legal
in all other particulars his rat‘s was a liter! for the considera
tion of the jury, and that there was
41‘“ point on which the trial judge ample evidence to show that the de
reversed by the Court of Appeals fondant did know what the legal rate
2&1;
. a jury with reference In other: words; the government con
ti: ignorance on the part of the Stand- tends vigorously and with references
. 'rd uncompany of the lawful rate as- to the record that the~' reversal of the
. case. so far as the ruling of the trial
‘.00iiift '0 Appeals in its opinion judge with reference to. ignorance on
.cpri'ec yb stated how the judge the part of the shipper as a defense
“on this an b‘ject. its concerned is based upon a mis-
. . Ifli opinion that he re statement by the court of the record
evidence to the street in the case as to the admission of the
and Oil Company did evidence pad to a misunderstanding
t ”the lawful rats was. by the court of whdt the trial ladle
.. _-....-..—
load was a separate shipment.
was left open.
The government insists that before
laying down this harsh rule and prnc
tically nullifylug the law the Court
of Appeals shonld"c.crtify in accord
ance with the statute this question tr.
the Supreme Court for its decision:
that no court short of the'Supremc
Court should undertake practically to
wipe the Interstate Commerce Act
from the statutes.
The petition states “before the gov
ernment is required to try tlrls case
under the rigid rule of construction
laid down by-thls court. is it not man
ifcstly fair and right.in the interest
not only of justice in this case, but
in the interest of a final and definite
construction of this important statute.
that judgment be taken of the highest
tribunal of the nation?“
The! government contends that thc
Court of Appeals in its opinion. has
laid down an erroneous rule for de-
termining the number of offenses.
The government contends that each
shipment is the basis of a distinct
offense: and that in this case each car-
The Circuit Court of Appeals has
held that there is but one offense for
each settlement for freight.
The government ciks against this
the opinion of Presiding Judge Gross-
cup in the case of United States v.
iianley. 71 Fed Rep" 672, 675. in
which that judge lgid down an exactly
contrary rule to the ‘0an which he laid
down in the Standard on case.
The government contends that the
rule laid down by the Court of Appeals
is contrary to the principles of the
Elkins Act and leaves it to the ship
per and carrier to elect for how many
offenses they will be prosecuted and
how much they shall be fined.
The government contends in the pe-
tition that the Court of Appeals has
done a great injustice to trial Judge
bundle in mlsstating what he did in
Connection with the imposition of the
line on the Standard Oil Company.
The Court Court of Appeals in its
opinion charges that Judge Landls as-
recognized from tinI earliest days
'ilrc gorcr-mnent takes issue with
the Circuit Court of Appeals as to' its;
rosilion that a defendant cannot be
dried more than the value of the pro
uerty which he possesses and states
‘hal this rulr,I is an innovation in crirrr
lnal law and if applied would destroy
the enforcement of most statutes.
' The government claims that the
facts before the Court of Appeals jus-
tify the imposition of the penalty in
fiioted by the trial judge.
it appears from the record lrr'thc
Circuit Corrrt of Appeals that the not
profit of the business of the Standard
.Oil Company of indlunu, the corpora
tion that Judge Landis fined. for the
Years during which the violations of
the law for which lbwas convicted
were committed and including the year
in which it was indicted amounted to
533.583.208.80.
On this point the petition states:
"We respectfully call the attention
of the court to the statement of the
Standard Oil Company of Indiana on
file in this case, referred to by the
'court in its opinion and treated as
proper for consideration in determin-
ing whether or not the penalty was ex
cessive."
The punishment. therefore. is no
more severe than that is inflicted upon
a letter carrier who steals a letter
and is sent to the penitentiary for
three years, thereby depriving him of
his earning capacity for that time. it
is not nearly so severe as the mini-
mum penalty of five years in the pen-
itentiary imposed upon a banker who
misapplies the funds of his bank. ,
The government claims that on ac-
count of the size of the fine alone
there is no nece ty for a retrial 0f
the case; that thgilrcult Court of Apr
peals may. itself me the line which
should be imposed and balls upon the
the view that Judge Landis abused his
discretion in imposing so large a line.
The petition conéludéa:
court to do so in case It adheres to .
the trial julgc;
"That the opinion of this court is
bust-d rrporr u misconception of iht‘ rec‘
ord with. rcfcrcncc to the rulings of the
.rinl judge us to tho admission of rIvl-
deuce tending to show want of know-
ledge. and with rcfcr-Incc to his cou-
strucilorr of the atomic on that sub-
loci. and the theory on \vhlclrkirc case
was tried; .tbal the evidence of lio-
gnrdus which it is claimed showed
want of knowledge mgr admitted, that
it was orcrcorrrc. lrowcver. by the facts
rnd circumstances of the case. and
that llrr.I cvidcucn as an cuiirciy was
sufficient to show actual knowledge, or
what in low was its equivalent;
“That the interpretation of the stat ,
nitI by this court. imposing no duty
on the shipper and permitting a dc-
fcnso of ignorance to be made without
regard to the negligence of tho ship—
lu‘l’. is contrary to the language of theI
statute and to its purpose. and serious-
l_v impairs the ciliclcrrcy of the act;
“That the ruling stated in tho opin-
ion ns to the basis for determining
the number of offenses involves an cr-
rorrcous construction of the statute
and falls to take into consideration
that tho thing which is prohibited by
the act is the transportation of pron
eriy at the unlawful rate;
“That the criticism of tlic irlzrl judgrI
for abuse of discretion rests upon a
wrong assumption of what the trial
judgeI actually did and assumes that.
he attempted to try and punish the
Standard Oil Company of New Jersey.
when in fact. as appears from the rec-
ord. tlrc entire proceedings were dl~
reeled against the defendant. tinI
Standard Oil Company of lrrrlianu;
"That the ruling stated in tho opin-
ion to the effect that a line is exces-
siv'e when it exceeds in amount the
ability of the defendant to pay is an
innovation in criminal law and if gen-
erallv applied would prevent the DVD-9
tical enforcement of most criminal
statutes;
"That, in short, the opinion as it
stands erroneously sinics material por-
tions of the record; does injustice to
leaves doubtful in a
new trial the rule of law to be ap-
plied. both as to the knowledge on
the part of the shipper.
number of offenses; appears to be in
conflict with the previous language of
the presiding judge of this court. and
with the great Weight of legal author-
ity; and, if permitted to remain un-
modified, will tend to encourage dis-
obedience to law. to impede the en»
forcement of salutary statutes and
largely to defeat their purIpOSe.
and us to the'
l
uoLvoue Pas'ron maniac.
llAli'l‘lI‘ORD, August 21.-—The Rev.
Harrison, of Holyoke, Mass.
John ii.
and Miss Holcn‘l’lrelps Moses, of this
titty wen- united in marriage here to-
to}.
lug.
First Baptist church ~=in lioiyoke ut-.
londcd tlrc crrcmony.
-——ltch! itch! item—Scratch! Scrat-
ch! Scratch! The more y0u scratcha state. 1857-1358.
Try Doan' s Oint- lscnaie
it cures piles. ecezma. any llmuun of representatives. 1869. Unit
ed States Senator 1879-1905"
the worse the llc.h
mont.
skin itching. All druggist sell it.
._._...
roaraarr or ssuaroa eLAfrr.
Mrs. 0. H. Plait, wife of the late
Senator Plath. has sent to the state
capitol at Hartford. a large framed
m. “we. ol ”1.. 8mm“ ofiiclat lplrotograph. regular portrait size, or
\lumi tliirhi) members of thcé
Senator Plait. Set in the gilt frame
lwrmnih thc picture is the following in
scription:
"urvillo Hitchcock Plait. Clerk of
the senate, 1855-1850. Secretary or
Member of state
1861,1862. Speaker of the
The portrait arrived at the capitol
Chief of Police and Mrs William‘ycsterday. and has been temporarily
Vollmcr of Crescent Terrace, are the placed close to the large safe contain-
gucsls of relatives al Cranbnry Lakes,
ing the charter of the colony and the
constitution of the“ state.
Sussex ‘t-zforrnty New Jersey
i
“For the reasons stated We respect--
fully request that a re-argument of
this case be granted."
The petition is signed:
' CHARLES J. HONAPARTE,
Attorney General
FRANK B. KELLOGG
SpeciallAssistant to the Attorney Gerr'
era .
- EDWIN SIMS,
' United States Attorney.
JANE: ii. WILKERSON .
"it is therefore respectfully submit- Special Assistant United States At
ted:
.. .0. ........ n..—
0‘
e
I
. torney,
'1' 2'3
Meat rs kahuna-mitt. “Mitt! iii ,
anmer~lrtile of any heavy fodd.
Most people eat foe and. to keep
Thanh are the days for Mapl- Flake and
Ask your doctor. .
He will tell you that whole wheat
is the ideal food for summer, if the
wheat is made digestible.
It gives one the maximum food
value, while creating the minimum
heat. .
Let it serve-ct least once a day
--for the whole meal.
. But you must have wheat that's
({iigcstible, else you don’t get enough
ood.
And the part that doesn't digest
is injurious.
That's wiry we steam-cook our
wheat total: hours. Whywecare it.
We cook this tht' m pure maple syrup. mainly
for the children's sake.
We want them to eat it in surnmcr-u you do— '
to the exclusion of heat-forming foods.
you to get it aggro
And we want them to ask
after yon serve it once.
So we make it enticing.
Ids.
argue then.
But get the one package—now.
Get one package to-day. Then stop readi our
We are perfectly willing to let the {norm '
v'ilfl‘l‘i
Mail.
Then we flake inch berry us thin
that the whole inst of our events
can reach every atom. ,
Then those thin flakes on: W
30minutes' in a heat at 499m
That is essential. Every hal-
speeialist knows it.
The particles of starch mat [to
so separated that the rim
juices can get to titan.
The result is a food that's ol‘
food—o food=thahall dfiufir!
B‘ut it takes us four times ad I“
to prepare it as it Md tab.
make a Media“.
Norwalk Chronicler