New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-06-09
THE ALLEGED COAL TRUST.
ARGUMENTS HEARD>BY JUSTICE CHEs-
TER IN ALBANY.
A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PRESSED
BY LAWYERS FOR THE RAILROADS.&C.
ToRNEY- GENERAL HANCOCK MAIN
TAINS THAT THE ANTITRUST
LAWS FIT THE CASE


LAWS FIT THE CASE.
Albany, June (SpeciaD.-An attack of de-
termined nature made to-day In tho Supreme
Court before Judge Alden Chester upon the anti
trust laws passed by the recent Legislature. These
laws were the outcome of an investigation into the
operations of trusts by Legislative committee
headed by Senator Lexow.
Attorney -General Hancock. who instituted the In
curry the acts Of the presidents o: the anhra-
cite coal-carrying railway corporations which was
the originating cause OF the conflict in the Supreme
Court to-day was present and defended the anti
trust laws. in company with John c. Davis AS
sistan Attorney General. and j. Newton fierc, the
States counsel in these trust suits. The ANTITRUST
laws were assailed successfully by David WILCOX
and Lewis + Carr of the Delaware and HUDSON
Company; David Mcclure, representing the De.a-
ware Lackawanna and Western, and Robert W.
DE Forest, representing the Central Railroad q
Ncw-Jersey The ontario and Western Railway
Company was represented by John l.. Kerr Inc
effort Of the counsel OF the railways was to per
suade Judge Chester dismiss his order giving au-
thoriiy to q referee, William T. Ward, TO compei
the presidents Of the coal-carryins railroads TO give
testimony concerning their alleged trust
Mr.. Wilcox called attention TO the fact that the
law was passed on May I, ard within hVc DAYS
afterward Attorney General Hancock began MS
proceedings against the railroads. This was az eH-
ample OF diligence on the part of the Attorney
General almost uncXGmped. The lawyers OF the
coal-carrying roads Heard Of the complaint before
they had received copies Of the now law An eN-
animation of the petition OF the AitoTncy-Gehela4
did ROT reveal any definite complaint against 'he
companies Il did not show that the raliroduS h"u
made any agreement between May Z ana J. 10
raise the prize of coal Of course. there cou!0 "o
be an; prosecution for acts OF roads before the
antitrust bills became laws. Moreover. If the al
legged illcSal agreement concerning the production
and sale Of coal made outside the state 'he
courts of this state had no jurisdiction NOT was "
competent to examine witnesses as TO events IN inc
cca trade prior to May Z
Apparently the Attorney-General thought that II
, he believed there was an Illegal combination he
could have witnesses before some referee bul an
examination Of the antitrust statutes showed 'H''
he must establish 20 the satisfaction OF lhe 81
prernc Court the. TACT that there WAS sood reason
to think there was an Illegal combination 10
restrain trade. Witnesses were not to be permitted
10 have any counsel before the referee THIS was
unjust ana. in Mr WicoXs judgment. Wcoh'u-
tutional The Constitution protected witnesses
This exposed them 10 prosecution while pretending
10 protect them. The referee had judicial powers
This was plainly unconstitutional lie was au-
thori.ed to ask relevant irrelevant questions
about the business affairs of great corporations
Such authority might be exercised In European
countries. but never before was an attempt mace
10 exercise il IN the United States. What was
restraint of,rade? What were trade combinations?
All labor organizations .strove to keep up the rate
of wages by driving away non-union men, was
not this combinat zion destructive to competition
and therefore subject 10 the Antitrust law!
Suppose man discontinued business. Was not
that lcsseninG the field Of competition. and there
fore was he not disobe wing the Antitrust law
Mr. De Forest argued that the constitutional
right of a citizen to privacy in the management
OF his business invaded by the act
j. Newton Fiero the counsel of the state IN re-
ply argued that the procedure adopted was legal
Iya said (pl ~ do know OF
these trusts; sometimes only newspaper statements
We must procure evidence before the Attorney
General can into court and state what ne
expects TO prove. If IT is held that the Coce OF
Civil Procedure must apply in this case the ANU
Trust law of this year viii be more embarrassing
than if it did exist there Will be an additional
obstacle in existence TO convcting the members q
q trust But l do not think the courts VIII 'ahe
the view that the Code Of Civil Procedure must De
considered. The argument is made also that THIS
IS not judicial proceeding l think it is plain
that the referee Is judicial officer OF the court
The objection is made that witnesses VIII not DE
guided by counsel. l submit that this question has
no relation TO this present case. When the VIII
nesses have appeared and, as IS apparent, nave
declined to answer certain questions then the
matter will be called to your attention by the
referee In regard to the propriety of Furnishing
them for contempt.
LAS to the constitutionalty OF the act insist
that this question also IS not before this Court.
Is it not 10 presumed, in the first instance that
the act is constitutional? Can Your Honor say
that the act is unconstitutional; that no part OF
II is constitutional? l hardly think you VIII
declare that every line of the act Is unconsutu-
tional 1t Is touching. the anxiety OF the lawyers
OF the trusts over the suffering OF laboring men
md labor unions if this antcombination act Is de-
clared good law. The widest scope should be given
TO this examination
yes, you wish undertake n fishing expedi-
''o "I take that phrase fishing expedition as
term Of honor ana not OF wisbed
fishing trip of an extensive nature TO be unGcr-
harmful trade Combinations. cali your attention
10 The law cases which indicate that there is
HttornSy-Ciemeral Hancock said. in part Il have
a,empted to follow me b ba o Tf t raegd in
many questions which are not before This Court
II expresses its intent II evidently is intended
10 put on the statute books law that monopo-
lies should be restrained IN this state. IheIe Is
nothing new n its provisions The courts have
repeatedly h@a tne Tbe learned COUNSEL is
asking this court 10 say that the keglsai9re ana
Yer have put on the statute books nugatory
law The presumption is that the law IS consti-
aMsrn ,bai the fnited States courts have stated
that an Illegal contract can be enforced. We say
thar an Illegal contract made in Pennsylvania can
not be e5aase GG in says ig' ha9 this an
alous statute. Eow, call your attention to the
thori,y TO summon witnesses before him than is
contained IN this antitrust statute, me 0hcer s
Controller and answered his questions. The State
Board Of Assessors and the State Board Of Chart
ties and various other State boards have "A sim
liar authority summon witnesses before them.
and this is the first time | heard that this
authority is not constitutional How were We 10
tell the names Of the adverse parties until We
discovered them? The counsel say there Is
provision for witnesses having counsel ! will be
frank 10 say that this is the intent Of the law.
That is Very evident" INTERRUPTED Mr.. Nc
But" continued the Attorney-GeneraL II be
lieve in executing the law ii Is. A few pyro-
technics have been INDUCED IN here about the
laboring man ] do rot care TO say anything
about that. but merely to say that at a time
when thousands Of laborers were out Of work
certain capitalists Of Pennsylvania got together
and entered into a combination to raise the price
OF coal. II they come here and answer questions
In good faith, no fault be found with them.
IL ihey decllne 20 answor the Implication VIII be