Omaha daily bee., 1906-02-09
Temporary Restraining Order Against
Grain Trust is Made Permanent
NAHA couscllMtN NOT I'M CONTEMPT
Highest Cours in State Reverses Sutton
and Holds Information insufficient.
RECIPROCAL INSURANCE TAX LEGAL
Decision I'm This Case Involves Thirty
Seven Thousand Dollars in Taxes
Held Up since Case Was Flied
Several Years Ago.
nrrom a stafr correspondentl

H'rom n Stan Correspondent)
LINCOLN. Neb., Feb. s.--(Special Tele.
gram. 1.-The grain case has been won by
the state The supreme court tonight over
ruled the demurrer Of the allied attorneys
of the grain dealers and made perpetual the
temporary restraining order to prevent
them from combining. secured by Attorney
General Brown some months ago.
The opinion was written by Judge Letton
and he upheld all of the antitrust laws, In
Guiding the Junkin act now upon the stat
utes. The court reviewed at length the ar
guments by the attorney general and by
the attorneys for the grain men; then held
with the legal department that each act is
part OF the system and one is supple
mental to the other. The court holds also
that repeating a law by Implication will not
hold, but that the latter law is merely sup
Elemental TO the first. repeating only those
sections which II covers. In his syllabus
Judge Letton said:
All statutes upon the same general sub
ject are to he regarded as part OF ,one sys-
TEN, and later statutes are to be considered
as supplementary or Complementary TO
those preceding them upon the same sub
ject.
Statutes In pari material should be CON
strued together Repeats by implication
| are not favored Where the legislature has
passed two statutes upon the same subject.
braced in the frst' and also additional pro-
vision. the later act supersedes tho first and
| repeals the first by implication. But IL the
later statute does not cover the entire field
| of the first and fails to embrace within its
| terms a material portion of the FIRST. It will
| cluded within its scope, but the two will be
| construed together so far as the first still
| sta nds.
Rule applied and held that the antitrust
| act Of 1897, known as the Gondrng act,
aet OF 3 o @ Se Ply e as
as to the first section therein defining
trusts" Unless It appears from, Its terms
persons is meant TO cover all nhibitions and
| regulations affecting them later general
in general terms the acts specified in the
former act. as well as a number of other
ana purposes s% snns g neT c,es @ am1
| civil remedies, win not be held to except
the persons embraced in the former act
Rnls asplisdt and s held f sSss the acts Of
1887 and 1891 prohihiting combinations ly
grain. etc. do mot not except such dealers I gsfT fro
the operation q the later general anti,trusi
| combinations to fix prices etc.
Defendants in Grain Case.
The defendants are;
| Omaha Elevator company Evans Grain
company, Dun Grain company. Hayes
| Eames Elevator company, Central Gra-
I1e naries company E%art- " Wilkinson Grain
Nebraska Elevator company. CroweiI Lunl-
Der and Grain company, Nebraska Iowa
company, Updike Grain company, Trans
mississippi Grain company, Jacques Grain
speits Grain company, HolmSuist Grain GipTnS and
| Lumber company, the j. II. Hamilton COM
pany Torpin Grain company, Peavey Ele-
American Grain comrsny. Atlas Elevator
company. Baker Crower Grain company,
feuben r. Schneider, Augustus II. Bewsher'
Horace q. Miller. Frank s; Cowgirl Nelson
Campbell. Christopher c. Crowell. jr. Frank
Fowler, Ray Nye, John b. Wright. William
Frank Levering. George II. Hayes. Tsnest
Eames. Richard Wilkinson, Stephen Ewart
Sm HShn hsnns hsnnnx GTa TS%,I Fals9sSs M13sSs VII
Nicholas A. Dun.
COuncilmen Not In Contempt.
The supreme court tonight reversed and
dismissed the contempt case against the
five city councilmen OF Omaha who had
been sentenced to thirty days In Jail by
Judge Sutton because they voted for the
Omaha gas ordinance while a temporary
restraining order against them was in eff
feet. The court holds the motion to quash
should have been sustained in the lower
. court because the acts alleged to have
, constituted contempt had not been set out
In the information with that certainty re-
quired in the punishment fer a crime For
, all the information told. the court said
the vote taken by the council might have
: been a straw vote taken to ascertain how
the council would vote we're there no re-
straining order In force.
: The opinion was written by Judge sedg-
wick. and in his syllabus he said
, A prosecution for constructive contempt
Is based upon an affidavit or information
alleging the facts constituting the con-
by interlineation in matter OF substance IL
must be verified and there must be a trial
a prosecution for constructive contempt in
. the violation OF restraining order the
acts constituting the violation. The gem
eral allegation that the defendant has dis
e6eyed the restraining order Is not sur
a A prosecution for contempt is in the no
tuTe OF a prosecution for a crime and the
9 the offense with as great certainty az -
y required in criminal proceedings.
Reciprocal Tax Law Upheld.
The reciprocal tax law OF Nebraska was
, today held to be constitutional by the su-
preme court, which decided against the
Insurance companies of North America
which sought an injunction to prevent the
auditor from collecting the tax. Since the
| suit was filed several years ago nearly all
n | Of the foreign fire companies have refused
to pay the tax, until now there is $1,000
Z due the state Judge Letton wrote tina
: opinion and Chief Justice Sedgwick dis
O sented In the syllabus Judge Letton said
The state courts are bound by the de-
| cisons of the United States supreme court
| regarding the proper construction of a
J. clause OF the federal constitution and IT'S
n application 10 the question involved in the
/; | litigation.
r The business OF Insurance Is not COM
n merce, and the making OF a contract OF
| insurance Is a mere incident OF Commercial
n intercourse, in which there is no difference
| whatever between insurance against fire
/ insurance against the perils OF the sea OF
1, insurance OF life. New York Insurance
company against Graves, i7s u. s.. sss).
Yeiser's Appearance Not Good.
n In the case entitled Several Tracts OF
N Land. John o. Yeiser. against the State, the
i supreme court holds to the decision OF the
district court. which refused TO recognize
YeiseT's answer, he appearing - yeaun.