The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-05-07
TRUST MUST TELL
Coal Octopus Receives a Set
back Today.
Supreme Court Decides That
Members Will Testify.
HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE
May 60 to County Jail for Con-
tempt.
Cases May Be Tried on Their
Merits.
Victory for County Attorney
0. E. Hungate.

The coal trust cases were decided
today by the supreme court, and the
decision of Judge Hazen is sustained.
According to the decision the wit
nesses subpoenaed by County Attor-
ney Hungate to testify concerning vio-
lations of the Farrelly antitrust law
by the Usage county coal trust must
testify. or go to Jail.
Two separate actions were brought
in the supreme court involving the
coal trust, both growing out of County
Attorney Hungate's coal trust inqui-
sition, started last September The
price of coal had been steadily ad-
vanced, and Mr.. Hungate subpoenaed
a number of local coal dealers and a
number of operators from the Usage
coal district to tell what they knew
concerning the coal trust, under the
provisions of the antitrust law. Two
operators, John Bell and John Jack,
refused to testify, asserting that they
were protected from doing so on the
ground that they might incriminate
themselves, although the law spe-
cifcally states that any information
they may give shall not be used
against them. Bell was committed to
Jail for contempt of court by Judge
Hazen, and he Immediately brought
action for a writ of habeaS corpus IN
the supreme court for his release.
Jack was also committed for con-
tempt. but his case was carried to the
supreme court on a regular appeal.
Both cases came up together. J. T.
Pringle, of Burlingame, was principal
attorney for the operators. The con-
stitutionality of the antitrust law
was attacked from every point. The
court however, upholds the law on
every point. Tt decides that the inQui-
sition under the antitrust law is in
the nature of a judicial proceeding,
and that witnesses are fully protected
by the law from having their evidence
used against themselves
County Attorney Hungate said to-
day when asked what would next be
done: 4 have not yet consulted Mr.
Coleman, the attorney general, but l
have no reason to think that there will
be any change in the programme We
will probably continue the investiga-
ton of the so-called coal trust to de-
termine whether there is any basis
for a suit"
Details of Decision.
The syllabus is as follows:
J. A proceeding before the district
court or district judge upon the writ
ten application of the county attorney
or attorney general under section 10
of chapter 265, laws of 1897, to take
the testimony If witnesses as to their
knowledge of violations of what is
known as the ANTITRUST law, is of
the nature of an investigation or pre-
lirninary proceeding, is a valid exer-
else of judicial power, and the pro-
cedure is due process Of law.
2. That portion of section 10 of the
bill of rights, that mo person shall
be a witness against himself can
not be claimed by a witness when by
the terms of an immunity statute the
immunity afforded is coextensfve with
the constitutional privilege of silence.
5. The immunity afforded by sec
ton 10 of chapter 265, laws of 1897
to witness subpoenaed to testify in
a proceeding or inquiry of his knowl-
edge of violations of the antitrust law
is coeMstent with the constitutional
privilege that no witness shall be a
witness against himself
4. A witness subpoenaed to testify
in a proceeding or inquiry of his
knowledge of violations of the state
antitrust law cannot refuse to testify
on the claim that the immunity af-
forded by section 10 of the act does
not afford protection against the pos
sibility of his evidence being used
against him in a prosecution for vio-
lations of the federal antitrust law.
5. The provisions of section of
chapter 265, laws of 1897, that every
person, company or corporation vio-
lating any of the provisions of the
act within the state is denied the right
and is prohibited from doing any
business within the state cOntemplates
prohibiting only the continuing of
business or the engaging in business
in the state in violation of the act.
g. The provisions of section of
chapter 265. laws of 1897, that in any
civil action there may be pleaded in
defense that the plaintiff or any per-
son interested in the prosecution has
within one year been guilty of a vio-
Iation of any of the provisions of the
act contemplates only civil actions
relating to and growing out of trans
actions prohibited by the act
Z. Chapter 265, laws of 1897, is not
in contravention of the provisions of
the fourteenth amendment of the con-
stitution of the United States and is a
valid exercise of legislative power.