Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1907-09-28
DENIES JURISDICTION or
COURT AND VALIDITY OF LAW

In his Introductory statement Mr..
Field said that in refusing to answer
the questions of the grand jury the
coal men had been actuated not by
any desire to prevent or obstruct any
proper investigation or inquiry into
the price Of coal. or any other in
quiry which the grand jury was COM
petent TO make. but hat the grand
jury had no right To ask the questions
which had been asked. and that as a
result of these questions the constitu-
1ional rights Of the coal men to tend
To their own business affairs had been
brought into question in a way which
necessitated "a refusal on their part 90
submit. and a defense of their rights.
His client. he said. had no desire 20
obstruct any proper inquiry into the
price of coal, but merely to sustain
his rights against an improper in
quiry into his private affairs.
Sections 1898 and 1894 Of the COM
piled laws of New Mexico. under
which the grand jury sought to make
the inquiry. Mr.. Field held TO be in
valid on the broad ground hat the
law was in direct conflict with the law
of congress known as the Sherman
act. Of which he held the territorial
law To be in its purpose a copy.
1t was the duty OF the courts, he
SAID. to reduce the price of coal to
consumers If II could do so in any
proper proceeding. and to Illustrate
any Illegal combination in restraint Of
trade or toAincrease the cost of coal
il such combination existed. He was
persuaded that the courts were not
created for any such purpose n that
the people were more Interested in
the preservation Of their constitu-
tional rights than they were in the
price of O
This court" said Mr.. Field, lis ut
terly without jurisdiction 10 pursue
this inquiry. either through its grand
jury or in any other way
Mr.. Field then reviewed the history
Of the territorial antitrust legislation
contained I'm sections 1899 and 1898.
showing tho law 20 have heen cnastea
some months after the act Of congress
known as the Sherman act. He then
entered into an exhaustive argument
10 show that the territorial law was
not only nullified by the act Of con
gress. but that it actually sought To
modify and restrict an act Of congress.
The congressional act. he said. pro-
Vided for immunity In certain cases of
prosecution for Illegal combinations
i'm restraint Of trade. The territorial
law made no provision for such inn
munity. 1t was impossible. he held.
a. m Y ANNLH on LHHN wv ~ L""L
from o citizen an immunity held out
nnder a law Of the United States. The
act Of congress. ne said. had not only
been made especially applicable 10
the territories. but a gone much
further than the territorial legislation
in that while the territorial law pro-
Nided only for the collection Of dam
90 the person injured, the United
States law provided that three times
The amount ~ damages might be coll
The territorial law, he said, Z
provided for a fine Of not to exceed
1.0O0. while 4the United states law
allowed this fine 20 be extended 90
81. eco. while the imprisonment clause
% the federal law was greater than
Of the territorial law.
m the territorial legislative act is
. law said Mr.. Field. "a has null-
fed the law 81 congress
He held hat where congress ana
he territorial Legislature legislated "n
same subject. the act o. congress
supersedes the territorial act. ana
a citizen Of New Mexico could
be twice placed CO. jeopardy Tor
same act. He distinguished be-
the authority Of The state ana
of the territory. The authority Of the
United tates he said. was delegated
IN ID hv the states. while b. TERRI
received is authority from the
government He held The two