The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-09-08
SENT TO F" JAIL"
Coal BarOns in Contempt of
District Court.
Judge Hazen Holds They Must
Answer Questions.
THEY STILL REFUSE.
Are Then Ordered Committed
to County Jail.
An Appeal from Ruling Is at
Once Taken.
POINTED QUESTIONS.
POINTED QUESTIONS.
County Attorney Hungate In
terrOgates Mr.. Jack.
He With Mr.. Bell Are to Be
Made Examples Of.

Judge Hazen held this morning that
the coal mine operators of Usage coun-
ty should testify in the inquisition
against the coal trust brought by
County Attorney Hungate. They re-
fused and were ordered committed to
Jail.
When two operators were placed on
the stand to testify they refused to
answer the questions and the two,
John Jack and John Bell, were com
mitted to jair' by Judge Hazen for con-
tempt of court and to remain in Jail
until they would answer. The cases
viii be appealed by the attorneys for
the coal men. The operators We're COM
mitted to jail constructively. but were
allowed freedom on 5000 bond
In deciding whether the operators
should testify or not. Judge Hazen
sai1:
This prosecution was instituted by
the attorney general and county attor-
ney under the antitrust law This
law has been before the supreme court
in the case of the State against Smiley.
and has been sustained as a valid en-
actment, but before that there was dis
cussiOn as to whether it was a valid
law. Some of the witnesses in this pro-
ceeding refused to answer questions on
general grounds that answers would
tend to incriminate them. and they
claim they are EXEMPT under the con-
sututiOn- 1t Is contended on behalf of
the state that the witnesses are given
complete immunity under the antitrust
law and that they are not entitled to
invoke the plea.
1t is clear that the legislature In
tended TO meet this objection. In the
4tth Kansas it is cOntended that the
state constitution is broader than the
iederal constitution. The case in the
4ith was not difficult to decide The
party was proceeded against for con-
tempt and was forced to take the stand
and testify. The supreme court held
that was a criminal prosecution and
therefore the constitutional clause was
thrown around the party and he could
not be forced to testify
The writer Of that opinion seemed to
think that the constitutional provision
could be carried to civil cases 1t has
never been understood in this state that
in civil case that one party could not
compel his adversary to give testimony
IN the case. It Is not believed that it
was intended that persons could avoid
giving testimony in civil cases.
The question is whether the anti
trust statute gives immunity to the
witness. If 1t does he shall be COM
PEELED to testify. The statute provides
that the testimony shall not be used
against him and Furthermore that the
witness can not be prosecuted on the
charge about which he testified 1t is
urged In this case on behalf of these
witnesses that a forfeiture is provided
ana no immunity from that is provided
and that evidence was secured and that
the state can then proceed to collect
that. The court passed upon the dues-
tion of forfeiture in the insurance cases.
The court decided that forfeiture pro-
ceedings can be brought only on con-
victlon in a criminal prosecution There
fore the witnesses have immunity from
clause "A G ho fv-r.~
the criminal part and the forfeiture fol-
lows a criminal conviction.
Tt is claimed that the witness is not
given immunity from prosecution un-
der the federal anti trust law. The fed
eral constitution provides that a person
can not be twice put in jeopardy for
the same Offense. Our courts have had
frequent occasions to pass on the con-
stitution in relation to jeopardy and it
was held that while he is not put in
jeopardy twice for the same offense he
j. can be twice in jeopardy for the same
act If he is prosecuted for an act
under one jurisdiction is no bar for
prosecution for the same act under the
other jurisdiction. The state law stands
independent of the federal law. The
distinction is that it is not the same
offerse but the same act.
II do not think 1t is the exclusive priv
ilege of the witness to determine
whether he shall testify or not. The
court will not treat lightly these ques-
tions but always guard the rights of the
witnesses
Here is a certain subject that is leg
islated. It is trust. The law provides
for the institution of proceedings and
the bringing of witnesses under the law
and then provides that any witness
who gives testimony must not thereafter
be prosecuted on a criminal charge. He
is protected against the criminal prose-
cution, but not protected against civil
proceedings. Therefore the court con-
cludes that the persons produced here
must answer the questions put to them
IN regard to the trust that it is claimed
exists and in doing this they are pro-
tected''
John Jack was then called to the wit
ness stand
What is your business?" was asked
by Attorney Hungate.
! am mine operator" replied Jack.
orr"
For Is years"
DO you know of meetings of Usage
county operators being held in Topeka ?"
Il decline under the objections in this
paper to answering the question
Attorney Hungate read the paper stat
Ing that he claimed immunity under the
bill of rights and reiterated the state
ments advanced by the attorneys.
The objection was overruled and Jack
was required to answer the question.
Jack refused to answer.
Have you any knowledge of a COM