The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-02-21

THE LAW is GOOD
E. J. Smiley Must 60 to
Jail.
Secretary of Kansas Grain Deal
ers Gets No Relief.
THE DECISION is FINAL
Suit Was for Violation Of Anti
Trust Law.
viii Result in Moving Up Coal
Trust Cases.
THE DECISION is FINAL

Washington Feb. 21.-The validity
of the Kansas antitrust law is upheld
by the supreme court Of the United
States in an opinion by Justice Brewer
in the case of Edmund ]. Smiley,
plaintiff in error. VS.. The State Of
Kansas.
Smiley in 1900 was secretary of the
State Grain Dealers association and
the allegation in this case was that he
organized the wheat dealers in the
town of Bison. Rush county, into a
trust to control the price of wheat at
that place. The supreme court OF the
state sustained the prosecution against
him and Justice Brewers opinion up
holds that verdict.
Justice Brewer based his decision
on the ground that the law was in
harmony with the power of the state
/ to control its own police affairs and
therefore not antagonistic to the fed
eral constitution.
E. J. Smiley, secretary of the Grain
Dealers association, defendant in the
decision, was seen this morning.
This question was put to him: Are
you going to serve your sentence2 ?"
That is a personal question: he
replied, purely personal, and one that
concerns me-
took place November 5, 1900, in Rush
county, Kan. in the district court
He was convicted and fined $500 and
ninety days in JAIL
will you try to get rid of the jail
sentence by paying additional fine If
the court allows ft?'' he was asked.
Il do not know a thing about that
he answered. Il have not conferred
the matter. I will, however, within a
few days do not look for any fur
Their action in the case, so far as ar
rest is concerned, for about sixty or
ninety days BY the time the supreme
court of the United States remands
the case back to the supreme court Of
Kansas, and that court again to the
district court of Rush county, that
much time Will elaDse. Meanwhile I
shall talk to my lawyers and let them
take care of the matter"
Since the declaration has been made
case that the Kansas antitrust law is
constitutional, the trial of the coal
trust investigation issues, made by
County Attorney Hungate can be
prosecuted before the same tribunal.
About year ago Mr.. Hungate
called in a number of coal operators
to testify in answer to questions which
he propounded to them that they were
in a combine to regulate the price of
coal Among these Witnesses and ope-
rators were John Bell and John Jack.
DOIn OF usage county. When placed
upon the stand both refused to testify,
saying that they would incriminate
themselves. Mr.. Hungate contenGed
that the trust law cleared them of any
such chance, and in reality granted
a pardon in advance for anything
which they might say detrimental to
themselves. The law says distinctly
that Investigation evidence shall not
be disable against the witness who
gives 1t.
The operators. through their at
torneys, proceeded to the supreme
court after being placed in contempt.
taking different shoots, one through
appeal and the other through habeas
corpus proceedings. In their petition
unconstitutional, but mainly are fight
ing on the theory that investigation
evidence which they might give is self
discriminating.
So while the decision in the Smiley
case does not cover the main conten-
ton of the case the operators have
made before the supreme court, II
does settle the cOnStitutiOnality of the
law. Had a different view been taken
by the supreme court, the coal trust
investigation would naturally have
been stopped right off.
''It settles that point at least" said
Mr.. Hungate this morning. TT makes
our case sure of a hearing before the
supreme court, and settles entirely
namely, that the law is unconstitu-
tional. Had 1t been held otherwise, it
would naturally have carried with it
the whole matter, and put an end to
the investigation. The main point,
however, that the operators make is
that any evidence which they might
give to me would incriminate them
selves. That is not at all true for the
statute very distinctly covers that
point saying that such evidence can
not be used against them in subse-
quent prosecution. The decision in
the Smiley case gives us now a clear
road to fight out the real import OF
the law. and lets us then at the issues
Of the case. 1t is naturally a very i'm
portant decision.
1--WE have not been waiting for this
decision" he said, because there was
nothing to wait for. According to the
regular routine of the supreme court
the case will not be heard until next
Novem Der. But IL clears up one con-
ested point, and very important one
Ii that"