The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-06-09
MONSTER LAWS RIDDLED.
THEIR VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF
CONTACT.
their Unconstltutionaiity Exposed BY the Law
yrrs FOR the Coal Railroads Before Justice
chester in tho Supreme Court-Tho Right
Of Privacy In Business Nsdo 1ilusory.

y.rs FOR the Coal Railroads Before Justice
chester in tho Supreme Court-Tho Right
Of Privacy In Tusiness H1sdo 1iiusory.
A,pASy. Juno s.-Justico Chester Of the gu.
nrcme Court to-day heard argument on the or
s,rs requiring the Attorney-Gonoral to show
Cause why the original order on which no began
nroccedings under the anti.monster laws
against the Presidents OF the four leading coal
railroads In tho East should not DO vacated.
Under this original order Walter &c. Ward OF
Albany was appointed referee to conduct an In
ou,ry to ascertain II q coal monster was operat-
inc in this State, in order that tho Attorney
General might determine whether such
a monster existed, and, II possible, to
s.cure evidence on which to base an ao-
t,ou against any combination In restraint
NJ trade which might DO found. These
four orders with argument to-day were
attained by President Robert NJ. olyphant Of
the Delaware and Hudson Railroad, President
Thomas C. Fowler of tho New York, Ontario
and Western Railroad, President j. Rodgers
Maxwell of the Jersey Central, and President
Samuel Sloan Of the Delaware, Lackawanna
and Western. At tho hearing to-day Lewis E.
Carr Of Albany and David Wilcox Of New
York represented President Olyphant. John
r. Kerr appeared for President Fowler,
David Mcclure OF New York for President
Sloan, and Robert w. Deforest for President
Maxwell. TUT thO Slhbc uppCdlCu
General Hancock and Deputy Attorney-General
Davis. Newton Fiero of Albany was special
counsel to the Attorney-General. making the
principal argument for tho State.
The same questions arise under all four orders
10 show cause. 1t was contended that the origi-
nal order appointing a referee should BIO vacated
and set aside as unauthorized by law and also
irregular.
Mr.. Fiero in arguing for the Attorney General
eaid:
cit will be noticed that the provisions of tho
act under which these proceedings are brought
are exceedingly broad and very general in their
scope. 1t is only required that the Attorney
General may. where he deems 1t proper to procure
testimony before beginning an action, present to
aJustice OF the Supreme Court an order direct
ing witnesses to appear to be examined concern
Ing the matters set out in the statute. No formal.
iy is contemplated by way Of either affidavit or
petition. A mere application in writing, without
setting out any facts whatever, would entirely
satisfy the provisions of the statute, and in that
respect the petition of the Attorney-General OBJ
jected to on the part of the witnesses sought to
be examined, is much more full and complete
than is required under the practice provided for
By the oct, and an examination Of the law is q
full answer to most, IL not all, of the objections
raised on the part Of the witnesses, since 1t is
within the discretion Of the Justice to require
these witnesses to appear and answer upon such
application in writing"
Mr.. Fiero then discussed tho objections raised
| TO the granting of tho order appointing Referee
/ word. aad said: THE two antitrust laws must
be considered, construed. and enforced together.
An action brought under one naturally includes
q procedure under rhc provisions of both. The
objection that the Attolt.sy.General's petition
visions Of the statutes and fails to set forth an In
tention TO bring an action or proceeding under
General is not, upon any reasonable construction
1.-THE act, obliged to state that he proposes to or
scope Of tie statute is intended to give the State
an opportunity to investigate matters relative
toillegal contracts or combinations, without In
any wise committing itself TO any action or pro-
eeeding with reference thereto. unless sui.
aeient evidence can be obtained upon which an
Nj; Fiero. said that the Attorney General
could base his application on and
which to take proceedings. The object OF the
proceeding was to obtain facts which would
David wilcox made the opening argument for
lin declaring the acts described by the statute
to be illegal and. void the Legislature exceeded
its constitutional powers" he said. Especially
i s,. this srs Sc as wn a i fIessf. Th ma pHov Gaesise Of the the
unsonstitutional. The Attorney Generals pro
Gent and fails to show any state Of facts within
the statute. The proceedings In this case do not
stitutional, both as regards the procedure which
II p~rescribes and as regards its substantive pro,
liberty and property which have existed Tor cen
turtes: as well as the constitutional right OF free
witnesses should therefore be vacated"
t <. re +: Carr, att Hm for p snfs den 9blyp n h ns
Al for the appearance and examination of the per-
y sons named should be vacated, because the petit
q ton on which It was granted was and Is INSULT
Gent TO Justify the order made. he said:
THE right to enter upon and conduct an in
yestigation inquisitorial in its character is so
fSSe etts1Ss q S with n sa ! p0 81 %IRSSIf'SSa ans sfsuiE Il s{&o ald
only be exercised in a clear case, and then under
citizen are sheltered from inquiry by the Consti-
tuition. and such procedure as may not must. re-
1T Is evident from the act itself the Legisla-
lure intended to guard so far as 1t could against
anuse OF this power, because provisions or the
tons in actions actually pending Or contem-
procedure. The Code provisions are not COM
RPa ae with in the application under eonsidera.
purely statutory, and the applicant must furnish
we statement OF facts showing he IL entitled to
and that the persons named knew somethipg
ABOUT 1t is on information and belief Of the
] e aileRsfjj0 wii z o9 no a . fact to T SSapP EsGt. II sbos Such
me occasion for the application must be stated.
NJ, When the combination was entered into is
because no law making 1t illegal antedates the
statute OF 1897. Where it was entered into we
are not Informed, yet that Is Of consequence be-
t1use II is difficult to see how the Legislature OF
me state OF New York can make a combination
eatffed into In another State, where II ID not
prohibited, illegal. Nor arc we advised, either
merns or by implication. who are, or were, the
parties to 1t, yet II would seem the Court should
nave some information on that subject before
authorizinR an Investigation. Nor are we told
, afM this combination will produce n monopoly.
WI prevent competition, or will restrict the
Zee pursuit OF any lawful business. 1t Is said
,,e combination Is to limit the produc-
ion OF anthracite coal. but it does not follow
t"u mat, as a. necessary sequence, 1t
" Illegal. or will produce the results
wOhiolted. Certain owners OF coal properties
ANY, ~ agree among themselves TO limit the pro-
I,hhuuon OF coal from their mines, to husband
t,bhetr resources, They may do that because in
Mr prevalent cessation OF business there Is less
nssHahd. They may do that for the purpose Of
TNSaueing the expenses OF their establishments
my may DO that for the purpose OF procuring
a, A. favorable rates OF transportation. Would
.1 ,to 70 say because certain owners OF coal prop
ME- dia so agree among themselves Justice
Mrne supreme Court, without knowledge OF
MIN mining more. would be bound TO assume. or