The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-08-05
STANDARD READY
Will Answer the Questions Az
tOrney General PrOpOunds.
Prefer That Method to Use OF
Dispositions.
ON ADIFFERENT PLAN
Harvester Trust Attacks Con-
stitutiOnality of the Law.
Both Appear in the Supreme
Court Today.

A o'clock this afternoon the at
tornevs for the Standard Oil company
and the International Harvester COM
pany appeared before the Kansas su-
preme court for the purpose of hling
their objections to the interroga-
tories" propounded by the attorney
general of the state
The questions involved in the two
big antitrust suits are practically the
same, and it was agreed that ooth
suits might be heard at the same
time. The Harvester hearing was
originally set for II o'clock this
morning, but it was postponed on ac-
count of other matters which Justice
Porter was hearing in his chambers.
The attorneys representing the
Standard Oil company are Earl Evans
of Wichita, ]. d. Mcfarland, Topeka;
Senator W. s. Fitzpatrick of Chau-
tauqua county and ]. B. F. Gates of
Independence
The Harvester company is repre-
sented by E. A. Bancroft of Chicago,
and Earl Evans of Wichita.
The attorneys for the state are F. S.
Jackson, attorney general and c. c.
Coleman. ex-attorney general.
The Standard Oil company and the
Harvester company are pursuing diff
ferent policies concerning the inter-
rogatories. The Standard Oil COM
pany ayers that it is willing to answer
the questions, preferring to give the
information that way than to have 1t
dragged out by means of dispositions.
The Harvester company, however, is
making its fight on the constitution
ality of the law at the present time.
The Standard Oil company does not
admit the constitutionality of the law,
but is willing to answer the questions.
The objections filed by the Standard
OIL company are brief, and merely re-
late to minor technicalities.
Their objections are as follows:
'I. This defendant objects to be- |
Ing required to or any order being |
made herein requiring this defendant |
to produce or file in this court any |
books, papers, documents or instru- |
ments, or copies thereof. as asked in. !
said motion. for the reason that no |
book, paper. document or instrument |
of any kind or character is mentioned |
or described in said motion. This de- |
fendant is entitled to reasonable |
notice of the specific books or writing |
which the plaintiff seeks to have pro-
duced before the hearing of a motion
TO require this defendant to produce
the same.
"2. This defendant objects to so
much of said interrogatory numbered |
as relates to associated or tributary
companies until said interrogatory
states the names of said alleged as
sociated or tributary companies for
the reason that said portion of said in
terrogatory is incompetent. irrelevant
proven, and calls for conclusions; and |
this defendant objects to any order
being made herein requiring this de-
1endant to answer said portion of said
interrogatory until said interrogatory
states the names of said alleged as
sociated or tributary companies
3. This defendant does not here
In or hereby object to making answers
quired so to do. and to the extent of
Its knowledge IN regard thereto to |
any OF said fnterrOgatories that call for
testimony which is competent, rele-
want and material in this cause"
The attorneys for the Harvester COM
pany make an attack upon the constitu-
tonality of the law which was passed
at the 1907 session of the legislature au-
thoriztng the interrogatory system of
securing evidence. There are also some
specific objections urged to the ques-
tions which are propounded, and an eff
+ will be made to have some of the
questions stricken out. The trust at
torneys also want to be given as long
a time as possible to answer the oues-
tions- 1t is claimed that the Officers of |
the companies who know the answers
to the questions are all taking their va
cations.
A long list of specific objections to the
fnterrogatories was filed with the attor-
ney general this morning, and presented
to the supreme court this afternoon. The
nrSt objection set forth is that criminal
prosecutions are pending against the
company and that the answering of the
interrogatories would aid the state In
the criminal prosecutions.
1t is claimed that the companies
should not be required to answer the
snterrogatories because the act of 1907
Is not retroactive and applies only to
civil actions arising or brought after the
chapter became effective. If the law
is neId to be retroactive, the companies
claim that the law is unconstitutional
for the following reasons:
/ because 1t violates section 10 of |
artlcle or the constitution of the Unit
ed states which prohibits any state from |
passing any ex post factor law or anv
law impairing the obligations of con-
tracts.
2 Because that portion of the 1907
law authorizing the court to make an 1
order requiring defendants to answer 8
questions ana produce papers is nm .
constitutional inasmuch as II snbiec+s
defendants to an unreasonable search {
and seizure of books, etc. This heinz
contrary to the fourth and fourteenfb I
to the constitution of the $
United states, and also contrary to !
section is of the bill of rights of the
state of Kansas. !
3. Because ii requires defendant 70 .
be witness against itself. which is )
contrary to the fifth amendment to the
constitution of the United States.
4. Because it is contrary to the 6fth
and fourteenth amendments which pro-
vide that no person shall be deprived ]
Of property without due process of Law
5. That the law is unconstitutional y
because the title and the body of the
law do not agree.
6. Because it provides that the court
may enter judgment by default against
the party failing to answer the interro-
gatories fled by the opposite party, a /