The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-09-07
COAL CASE IS ON.
Barons Resist Every Move of
the Attorneys.
Claim That the Law Is Cn-
constitutional.
JOHN JACK is CALLED.
Objections to Taking Testimony
Are Immediately Made.
Lawyers Say the Witness May
Incriminate Himself.
Preparations Are Made for
Fierce Legal Struggle.

The ''inquisition" in the initial steps
against the Usage county coal combine
did not get underway in the district
court until 1890 o'clock this morning
and before any interesting testimony as
to the existence of coal trust could be
introduced, if there is any to be had
the lawyers began their legal battle as
to the rights of operators and the DOW
ers of the legislature to pass laws to
break up trusts and also on the uncon-
stitutionality and soundness of the laws
passed by the Kansas legislature in en-
deavoring to give county attorneys pow
ed to examine witnesses under the in
QUESTION clause of the law.
At the rate set this morning it will be
next summer or the summer after before
it can be determined that coal trust
exists, if it does, but it may be but a
few days or hours until it is decided
that the county attorneys and attorneys
general have no right to prosecute a
trust. The Usage county operators sub
poenaed to testify as to the existence
of trust were as follows:
John lack
J. D. Norton.
c. J. Devlin.
II. 1saacs.
Gus Johnson.
Robert Elliott.
John Reu-
Neil EotcEkiSs
Arthur Summers.
J. Coughlin.
Robert bunker.
o. w. knight.
The dealers subpoenaed from Topeka
were as follows:
Robert Dietrict-
J. w. F. Hughes.
f. H Webster.
Vincent Kaczynski.
A NJ Kent.
F. M. Neil.
c. c. Nicholson.
p. J. Mora ghan.
G. C. Coughlin.
John SandersOn.
James Warrington.
]. T. Pringle. c. B. Smith and Cliff
Histed appeared for the operators, and
Attorney General Coleman and County
Attorney Hungate appeared for the
state.
John Jack was called as a witness,
and he was sworn j. T. Pringle, of
BurHngame, spoke for the plaintiffs.
He entered a motion to quash the
subpoena so far as Jack was concerned
in the proceedings and claimed his con-
Stitutional exemption The motion to
quaSh was made on the ground that
Mr.. Jack was engaged in mining and
that under the bill of rights of the
tifying in a case wherein he may be
prosecuted. Mr.. Histed referred to the
fact that the supreme court had never
passed on the legality of the ''inQuisi-
ton" clause of the anti-combine law.
He advanced the claim that the inqui-
sition clause is iniudicial and in Vari-
ance with the fourteenth amendment to
the constitution. Mr.. Histed then re-
ferred to the decision of the supreme
court of Missouri that witnesses shall
not be required to give incriminating
evidence that might be used against
themselves
Mr.. Histed announced that counsel
had prepared answers for the witnesses
to use in answering questions, and such
answers to maintain their position that
they can not be required to give in
eliminating evidence. The argument
was advanced that the legislature has
no right nor power to insert clause
in any law contrary to the constitu-
tional exemption covering discriminating
evidence, and that nothing short of
absolute immunity from prosecution
can take the place of the privilege
allowed in the matter of giving incrimi-
mating evidence, and that the immunity
must be of such a character that he
would be protected from every element
that might affect him in business or
otherwise. The legal contest resolved
itself to the question of whether the
decision of the Missouri supreme court
in the recent Doodle cases, that a man
who might be guilty cannot be made
law providing for such testimony, shall
be followed
Following Mr.. Histed's argument for
the miners. Attorney Hungate will
holding the antitrust law. The greater
part of the day will be taken up in
arguing the question whether the oper-
ators can be made to testify or not.