The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-06-06
They TALKIT over
Oil Refinery Case Argued in
Supreme Court.
Standard Attorneys Claim Law
Is a Bad One.
MANY LAW YERS THERE
Each Side Given an Hour to
Submit Case.
Pertinent Questions Asked by
the Justices.
Many LAWYERS THERE


Much interest was manifested in the
oral argument in the state oil refinery
case which was presented to the SUI
preme court Monday afternoon. AMONG
those who were present We're Senator
samuel Porter, author of the state oil
| fehhery bill; S. H. Branadon, of Butler
( county who fought the oil refinery bill
III the house of representatives; Col
Wm- Sapp of Ga1ena, Eugene F. Ware
OF Topeka, Col. Dick Blue and a
number of other prominent lawyers
and politicians of the state.
c. c. Coleman and S. NJ. Porter rep
resented the state. D. w MuIvane and
Chas. Gault were there on behalf Of
Z. B. Jewett. warden of the peniten-
tiary, and J. W. GIeed on behalf of 7.
T. Kelly. state treasurer.
The court allowed each side one hour
to present its case, and the argument
commenced at 2;30 o'clock Attorney
/ General Coleman waived the opening
argument and Charles GauIt opened
for the defendants.
The case is mandanus action
brought by the state to compel State
Treasurer Kelly and Warden Jewett
to proceed and issue the bonds to pay
for the oil refinery.
MY SEauU speaks.
Mr.. GauIt said in part:
| L do not think Importance of this act
| is measured by the effect it will have On
/ the oil industry. The question is wheth-
/ er by limited use OF convict labor the
state can engage in internal improve
ment work. If the state should try to
/ build a railroad, cotton mill, a WOODEN
mill, it would be an internal imllova-'
ment."
"A railroad has a quasi public char
J aG 1red
! Johnston.
Yes. I should say so"
Then where do you distinguish be-
4 tween ertel prises of quasi public char
acter and those which are not2'
AN industry of quasi public charac-
| ter is one which IS for the use and ben
ent Unfortunately of all the people.
we hold that the state has no authDri-
I ty to use its conyicts or it's money for
1 the construction of an oil refinery. Tire
state may provide employment Cor sTafe
convicts but it may not do so by pro-
/ viding works of internal impTove-
ment."
GIeed Answers Questions.
Mr.. J. W. Gleed said in supplementing
Mr.. Gault's argument for the defend
ant:
An implied power to furnish employ
ment- to cOnvictS cannot be allowed 10
conflict with direct prohibition against
internal improvement. The state could
use more convicts in a $4,000 bank
"
and there are more eXOert bankers in
1 the penitentiary than there are expert
| oil refners. There are a thousand ways
/ this implied power to furnish employ
ment can be exercised without violating
the constitutional provision against in
/ ternal Improvement"
! Would the development of a coal
mine be a work of internal improve
ment2" asked Judge Mason.
4 am not prepared to say replied
/ Mr.. Gleed, an irrigation reservoir, and
a Hour mill have been held to be in
/ ternal improvements. The reason for
this constitutional prohibition is nos
hostility to improvement but is to keep
the legislature from making unwise ex-
penditures, and plunging the state into
debt
EVERY section of this bill which is
not devoted entirely to the oil refinery
/ is devoted in part to the oil refinery.
! The object of making the state a party
! to the carrying on of a oil refinery IS
/ there, no matter what else is there It 1
is just as plain as though the ostrich
| had not stuck his head into the sand
/ at all That's what the governor meant
! when he referred to it as radical de-
parture' from precedent. He knew that
/ the beef men would be asking for d
state slaughter house and the salt men
! for a state salt plant
Then the state cannot asked Judge s
/ Mason, make use of convict labor to I
make anything for the public market2'
Where the line is drawn I would not
Then you do not doubt the authority
/ of the court to enter upon the eonsid-
/ Grafton of which is the principal object
1 of this act2" continued Judge Mason.
/ I think the court has that power but
1 I think it must arrive at the conclusion
] that we have reached
Mr.. Gleed then argued that the levy
! of a tax to pay for such an institution
I as an oil refinery is void.
Senator Porter Speaks.
Senator S. NJ Porter, the author of
/ the state oil refinery bill, made a brief
/ ton with the case IS such that he pre-
ferred to submit his arguments in the
4 form of a printed brief
I Attorney General c. c. Coleman then
] closed the argument on behalf of the
4 state He argued that it was in the
/ province of the legislature to decide
/ what shall be done with convicts-
Judge Smith said would the legis-
lature have the power to establish
sugar factory here at Topeka and de-
! signate one court to manage 1t, give
ing it the name of a penitentiary p
''I should say that would be a very
raw proposition replied Mr.. Cole
man.
what would you say" asked Chief
! Justice Johnston, "of the authority OF
the legislature to build a branch pen
4 itentiary when it has 700 convicts in
a penitentiary large enough to hold
!. u should say that it is the Iegisla-
4 ture which is responsible for such
things and should be held accountable
at the next election
Judge Greene then took a hand in
the interrogatories. This bill" he
said, contains no provisions for ad-
1nitting cOnvicts to this branch peni-
i Tertiary Would you consider that 8
matter Of importance? ?"