The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-09-24
WILL BE HEARD SOON.
Smiley Antitrust Case Set Down for
October.

The Smiley grain trust case IN the
| United States supreme court, on which
Il hinges the eonstitutionality of the Far
reilly antitrust law in Kansas, ana
(which is therefore a case of great I'M
lportance, is set for argument during
the October term of the supreme court
land will be submitted on briefs next
Fweek. Attorney General Coleman is as
sisted in the case by H. j. Bone ana
D. R. Hite. Mr.. Hite was one OF the
states attorneys in the original anti
grain trust case which was brought,
and he is therefore familiar with the
entire procedure. He has been DONG
much of the work in preparing the
states side of the case in the United
States supreme court
| About three years ago Carr w. Tay-
1or who was then county attorney OF
Reno county, started an action against
some of the grain dealers in the county
! for violating the antitrust law. AT
that time it is alleged that the state
Grain Dealers association was a trust
| z. J. Smiley, who has always been the
secretary and executive officer OF the
association, was subpoenaed to testify
in the case, but he refused to answer
certain gu. stone put to him, ana the
| late Judge NJ. P. Simpson, then district
Judge to Reno county, committed MIN
to jail for contempt of court He i'm
mediately applied to the Kansas su-
preme court for release.
About the same time the county at,
torney of Rush county started trouble
for the grain dealers and he had Mr..
Smiley himself arrested for being the
executive officer of the alleged trust.
In that case Mr.. Smiley was convicted
of violating the antitrust law and was
given a sentence of both fine and i'm
prisonment. He appealed to the SUI
preme court on the ground that the
antitrust law was unconstitutional,
and after the case dragged along for
some time the state supreme court
upheld the law. Then the case was
carried to the United States supreme
court and is now about to be submitted
there.
If the Farrelly law is upheld it will
not only hit the grain trust, but it will
also furnish an opportunity to break
up the coal trust which has Kansas
in its grasp. 1t is said that the meth
DDS of the grain dealers association
have been considerably modified since
the prosecution was commenced and
that it is no longer the trust that it
was. There are other trusts, however.
that can probably be reached under
the Farrelly law if it is upheld.
In the states brief, which has just
been completed for submission to the
United States supreme court, the ques-
lions at issue are stated as follows :rf+., !
''Mr. Smiley was tried and convicted
of having entered into combination
with the grain buyers and dealers of
Bison, Kan, to pool and fix the price
they should pay for grain at that
place; to divide among the parties to
the com binatiOn the net earnings of
the grain dealers and buyers; and to
prevent competition among the parties
to the combination in the purchase and
sale of grain. So far as this court is |
concerned, it is concluSively eStabliShe d |
that the plaintiff in error did in fact
enter into a combination for the ac- |
complishment of these objects. Mr.. |
Smiley's complaint is that by his con-
viction for doing these things he has |
been deprived of his liberty without
due process of law, in violation of the
fourteenth amendment of the federal
constitution.
I'm support of this contention he |
asserts that the statute of Kansas
known as the antitrust act of 1897 is
an unconstitutional interference with
the citizens right of contract, and is /
therefore wholly and absolutely void;
and, since there is no such thing in
Kansas as a common law crime, his |
liberty is threatened without any law +
whatever. OF course, if the combina-
ton to which Mr.. Smiley was party /
is in reality nothing but lawful con-
tract, with which the state has no
right to interfere, he should be dis
charged
1.-The grievance of the plaintiff in error
is, therefore, that he is to be punished /
for entering into agreement which
is lawful because within the protection
of the federal constitution, and winch,
therefore. the state of Kansas has no
right to prohibit 1t is with this gFiey- /
ance we have to deal If there is error
in the record, it consists in the attempt
of the state of kansas to PUNISH MI
Smiley for becoming a party to the
com bination described in the informa-
ton. If the acts of the plaintiff in error
belong to that class of transactions
which lie outside of the constitutional
of the state to prohibit. it
is wholly immaterial to this inquiry
what acts do com ewithin the states
to punish
MIR. Smiley admits that he entered
into this contract which is prohibited
by the Kansas laws, but he denies its
Manifestly, il it is with his