The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-05-25
COAL CASE up.
Grounds Upon Which the Kan
sas Barens Appeal.
Tie Faith to Fourteenth COnsti-
tutiOnaI Amendment.
MAY REACH 1T SOON.
Judge West Thinks Case May
Be Heard by October.
of Errors Made
Basis for Appeal.

The Fourteenth amendment to the
United States constitution covereth q
multitude of errors. according to the
attorneys for the coal trust
The assignment of errors on which
an appeal is taken from the recent de-
cision of the Kansas supreme court to
the supreme court of the United States,
sets forth that the state supreme court
made seven mistakes in its decision,
and the Fourteenth amendment is made
the basis for all the assignments. The
coal trust attorneys say that the four
teenth amendment was violated seven
times.
The assignment of errors has just
been filed in the state supreme court
and the court has allowed the writ on
which the case will be appealed to the
United States supreme court. The case
in which the appeal is taken is that Of
John d. Jack. The attorneys for the
coal trust are Rossington, Smith &
West, Clifford Histed, J. Z .Pringle and
A. E. Gilluly.
Judge West says that if this is a
criminal acton there is no reason why
it should not be reached in the United
States supreme court by next October.
The Smiley grain trust case is exactly
similar to this, however, and the Smiley
case has been pending in the United
State supreme court about two years
already and has not yet been argued
1t is quite likely that the decision in
the Smiley case will also decide the coal
trust case. The Farrelly antitrust law
is involved in both cases.
The assignment of errors in the coal
trust case is as follows:
1. The court erred in holding that
Notwithstanding the testimony of the
appellant might incriminate him under
the act of congress of July 2, $780, COM
monty known as the antitrust act, he
was still compelled to testify. Section
10 of chapter 265 of the laws of 1897, as
thus construed by the supreme court
of Kansas, is in violation of that pre-
vision of the Fourteenth amendment 10
the constitution of the United States,
which I-oVides that no state shall de
NY to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of its laws
?. Section 10 of chapter 200 OF the
laws of 1897 as thus construed by the
supreme court is further in violation
of that provision of the Fourteenth
amendment of the constitution OF the
United States which provides that
nor shall any state deprive any per
son of life, liberty or property without
due process of law"
8. That the said section as con-
strued by the supreme court is also
violative of the further 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 abridge
the privileges or immunities of the
citizens of the United States
4. The procedure prescribed by
section 10 of chapter 265 and under
which the judgment of conviction was
pronounced against him, is not due
process of law within the meaning of
the Fourteenth amendment of the
constitution of the United States, and
the supreme court of Kansas erred in
holding to the contrary and Overruling
and denying the protection and inn
munity invoked by appellant in that
behalf
5. That chapter 265 of the laws of
1897 in its entirety is violative of that
provision of the Fourteenth amend
lnent to the constitution of the United
States which provides that mo state
shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immu-
mites of citizens of the United States, "
in that it unreaSOnably restricts and
limits the rights and privileges of a
citizen engaged in lawful occupation.
6. Chapter 265 of said laws is fur
ther yiolative of the Fourteenth
amendment which provides that Nor
shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal pro-
lection of the laws in that it un-
reasonably limits and restricts the
right of private contract and of citi-
zens to engage in lawful occupation,
and in that it unreasonably discrimin-
ates between different classes of citi-
zens of the United States and denies
certain citizens the equal protection
of the laws.
Z. That the judgment of the su-
preme court of Kansas is erroneous in
that it denies to the appellant the pro-
lection guaranteed to him by the
Fourteenth amendment to the consti-
tuition of the United States in the par
ticulars hereinbefore pointed out.