The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-09-09
HITS TRUST LAW.
Appeal In Coal Baron Case At
tacks Its Validity.
Claim That 1t Conflicts With
Federal Constitution.
MEANS A LONG DELAY.
Earliest Possible Action Would
Be October 10.
Probable That 1t Will Be Much
Later.
leans A LONG DELAY.

The coal trust case is now up to the
supreme court, and it will be argued in
that tribunal on October 5. The trust
will attack the constitutionality of the
antitrust law from every conceivable
standpoint.
An application for a writ of habeas
corpus has been filed in the supreme
court by John Bel. one of the two wit
nesses who refused to testify before
Judge Hazen, and who was consequently
sent to jail for contempt. The writ was
allowed, returnable October S, the day
on which the supreme court will begin
its next session, and in the meantime
Bell is released on a $500 bond.
The appeal in the case of John Jack.
the other witness who refused to testify.
has not yet been filed in the supreme
court. This will be a direct appeal.
The main point on which the anti
trust law will be attacked will be that
it conflicts with the fourteenth amend
ment to the federal constitution. After
reciting the fact that Mr. Bell had been
cited to appear before Judge Hazen and
testify regarding the coal trust. and
that he had refused and been sent to
Jail by Judge Hazen for contempt. the
application for the writ makes the fol-
lowing allegations:
"First-That your petitioner under
and by virtue of section 10 of the bill
of rights was exempt from answering
the questions propounded and from
giving testimony with reference to the
subject of said inquiry. and the order
of the district court in overruling his
claim of immunity was in violation of
said section 10 of the bill of rights
Second-That section 10 of said chap
ter 265 of the laws of 1897, upon which
orffo Il
is in violation of that provision of the
fourteenth amendment to the constftu-
ton of the United States which pro-
vides that No state snail deprive any
person of life, liberty or property with
out due process of law said proceed
ing not being due process of law. in
that it is not founded either com
plant, information or Indictment, no
complaint specifying with reasonable
certainty an offense charged to have
been committed has been filed. but
upon testimony 'adduced the witness
may be subject to penalties and forfei-
lures provided by other sections of this
act, and that the said proceeding de-
prives certain citizens and classes of
citizens of the United States, including
your petitioner, of their liberty, prop
erty, privileges and innunities in
way other than by due course of the
law of the land; and that the said pro-
ceeding is not judicial in its character
and the power attempted to be confer
red upon the district court or judge IN
section 10 is not judicial For the same
reasons, said proceeding is further in
violation of that provision of the four
teenth amendment to the constitution
of the United States which provides
that no state shall deny any person
within it's Jurisdiction the equal protec-
ton of the laws.
''Third-That chapter 265 of the laws
of 1897 is violative of that provision
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
constitution of the United States which
provides that No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abr1dge
the privilege and immunities of citi-
zens of the United States. in that II
unconsciously restricts and limits the
right and privilege of citizen engaged
| in lawful occupation; and is further
violative Of that provision of the Four
teenth Amendment which provides that
No state shall deprive any person of
| life, liberty or property without due
process of law in that 1t unreasonably
limits and restricts the right of private
contract and of a citizen to engage in
a lawful occupation. And is further
violative of that provision of the same
amendment which prohibits any. state
from denying any person within It's
jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws, in that it unreasonably discrimi-
mates between classes of citizens of the
United States and denies certain citi-
zens the equal protection of the laws.
"Fourth-That said act and said sec
ton 10 are in violation of section 1 of
the bill of rights
"Fifth-That said act and said sec
/ ton 10 thereof are in violation of sec
ton Is of the bill of rights.
''Sixth-That said act is in violation
of section 16 of article of the state
constitution, which requires that no bill
shall contain more than one subject.
which shall be clearly expressed in it's
title
This postpones further action against
the coal trust for at least a month and
perhaps much longer. The supreme
court could not possibly render
opinion before the first Saturday fol-
lowing the hearing, which will be
October 10. and if there is any differ
ence of opinion among the judges it
may be delayed a month or more long
The antitrust law was pretty thor
oughlv threshed over. however. in the
Smiley grain case and the law was up
held Mr.. Smiley has taken an appeal
to the United States supreme court and
his case is now pending there.