The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-04-04
ASKS COURT TO
SUSTAIN ACTION
Federal Counsel Makes Brilliant
Argument in Coal Land
Fraud Cases.
FRAUD CONSTITUTES CRIME
THEORY OF DEFENSE PlDl-
cULED BY r. A. MAYNARD.

The fact that the defendants in the coal
land fraud cases secured 1900 acres of
coal land and transferred the tract to
the Utah Fuel Co. and the Pleasant Val
Icy Coal company, while under the fed
eral statutes the amount Of land which
any association or corporation can OBJ
tain from the government is limited 20
90 acres, is claimed by the government
10 cOnCluSlVely establish its contention
that the accused are guilty OF criminal
conspiracy 10 detTaud. rms was tIle Dd-
SIS of the argument for the United States
presented by +. A. Maynard, special as
sIstant 10 the attorney general, before
Judge Marshall in the federal district
court yesterday in asking that the de-
muTrers entered by c. NJ Freed, W. @.
Filler Don &. Robbins and K. W. Senior
be not sustained. The case was submitted
late i'm the afternoon, the judge taking
il unda0 Amusement
Mr. Eaynard's argument was brief and
directly to the point at issue. He out
lined first the purpose of the protective
features of the federal land laws and
then cnde8v0red to show how they had
been grossly violated by the accused.
Purpose of Land Laws.
IN this connection he said: The United
States has been defTdUded- But II Is not
alone the governmental authority that has
been ignored, for the rights of the peO-
pie, for whom the government holds this
land i'm trust. have been trampeled on.
The land laws provide that every cit-
zen over the age of p is entitled TO file
ON 169 acres of public land. y corpora
ton may file on 800 acres, and if its eX-
ponds $500 in the Improvement of this
land il may file on 800 acres more in the
same territory. Thus according TO our
laws the amount Of land which any cor
U0ratiou or association is allowed to ac-
Quire under the most favorable Circum-
stances is $40 acres. But these men Sc
cured 1000 acres. They do not deny they
have violated the law and their only con-
1euti0u is that the law Is not broad
enough 10 make their fraudulent acts
Tightening mCsheS of the law by say
ing. We took the land wTOngfUliy and
viii nave 10 give il back. but we did not
commit "a crime They acknowledge an
CRY out: We didn't think people would
call us criminals if we got caught
False Pretenses Made.
Take the definition Of the learned
counsel for the defense of the word de
fraud He says IT means to deprive by
false preteuses' when applied to a GRIM
lUal case. Did not these men deprive the
government of this 4O00 acres of land by
false prstenseS2 Does not this definition
exactly cover the crime which we are
prosecuting? The defendants, acting to-
Eether and in collision with the coal COM
panieS, induced friends and relatives to
file On this land. The friends and rela-
tiVes did not want the land themselves.
10 turn ii over to the accused, and they
ia turn. transferred il to the coal com
panles, who are now aiding IN defending
them. Did not the defendants, if these
facts be true. and they are admitted con-
spire to defraud the government by false
pretenseS2 Was not that their purpose and
obiect2 / submit that the government has
been defrauded and that this fact alone
is enough to bring the definition of that
word as applied To the present case alb
sOIutely within the sJrictest limitations
r.14s. 4 vr-fap &c fn
be construed in connection with criminal
proceedings
Criticised WaIdron.
Mr. MAYNARD took occasion to eriticise
The counsel for the defense, Mr., Wal
dron. for taking up too much time in
his argument, which lasted all day Tues
day Il wonder where he would be at
I'm the United States supreme court,
where only one hour is allowed for argu-
meuts I'm the most important cases. In
Michigan he could only get fifteen min
utes. while here he takes up all the time
Nj Waldron retorted by saying that
he was not gifted with the power OF con-
Centrauon as was the learned counsel on
the other side
Mr. Maynard also attacked the cOnten-
ton OF the defense that there was no
precedent for the case at bar and tnat
although the laws under which the in
dictmeuts were brought have been on the
statute books since 1867 no attempt has
been made before to bring prosecutions
of this nature under them. why only
q few years ago said the speaker. this
country was inhabited only by wild ami
mails and Indians Conditions are entire
ly different now, and II mas become the
duty of the government to protect from
coal monopOlies the increasing millions
Of its citizens We are here to make
precedent and in making II we hope to
make it Of such nature that the gi-
gantic coal combines that have oppressed
the people will not enjoy the privilege of
taking from them the land which Is
Tightfullv theirs. The matter to be con-
Sidered is not one of precedent but the
fact that this association of individuals
COnsDired TO defraud the United States
of America out of 1900 acres of valuable
coal land N order that the coal mo-
uOpOly might prosper to the derlment or
the people. Because people have been
allowed TO thus defraud the government
heretofore is no reason why they should
he allowed to do it for all time TO come.
Because a man is allowed TO ply the