Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-05-27
FEDERALCOAL
TRIAL DATE SET
FOR FALL
Anderson OverruIes Motion
and Orders Defendants in
Court Nov. 8.

The trial of b1tumtnous coal operators
and miners charged with conspiracy to
limit production and distribution of coal
viii open in federal court Ncv s
The date was set following the over
ruling of demurrer filed by Charles
Evans Hughes. counsel for the officials
of the United Mine Workers of America
and attorneys for the operators. and the
entering of pleas of not guilty by fifty
seven Of the miners.
The Indictment on which the men will
be tried charges the operators and min
ers with conspiracy TO limit production
and distribution of coal in order to en-
hanee the price thereof, under section .
of the Lever law, as alleged by the first,
second, third, fourth and seventeenth
counts
The indictment was returned by a spe-
cial federal grand jury March IL as
result of an investigation into the min
ing operations.
HUGHES ATTACKS
SECTION OF ACT.
The argument on the demurrer to the
Indictment was begun Immediately after
the ruling on the motion to quash.
Mr.. Hughes contended that section 0
of the Lever act did not apply. but was
HAEGAoSucu uS lAG dCIAuu O1 IUe pEeSl-
dent in regulating the fuel industry IN
der the powers granted to him by section
% Of the act.
1t was held BY the defense. Mr.. Hughes
stated, that during the regulation of the
coal industry under section %, the gen.
eral statutes, section ., did not apply.
but was overruled by section %, which
provides its own penalties
He said that it was impossible to read
section into section % which, he said,
contained a complete penal code in re-
gard to the carrying out of its own rules.
The argument for the government was
made by Dan ". Simms. assistant United
States attorney general, who said that
the rule as to general and specific
statutes did not apply in the case in
question, because nothing in section %
or the fuel administration regulations
covers or relates to anything TO which
reference is made in section ..
In reply to Mr. Simms. Mr.. Hughes
said that the counsel for the government
had advocated an extraordinary theory
when he invited the defendants Ito go
into their closets and search their con-
sciences to see if they could discover
whether or not they were guilty Of cor
rupt practices"
In referring to Section - Mr. Hughes
said that if the men had done what the
president had required Of them under
Section % they could not be prosecuted
under the provisions Of Section O.
In ruling on the demurrer two prin-
cipaI objections We're pointed out by
Judge Anderson.
He said that the section said that:
''When any one conspires,' and that,
he held does not mean that It Is neces-
Fary for the defendant TO be engaged
In the coal Industry.
He held that the Indictment does not
have to allege that the defendants are
eIgaged in the coal industry and that
Section is not superseded, repealed or
abated by Section -.
In handing down the ruling Judge An
derson said it was his opinion that the
United States has a big Job on their
hands, when they undertake TO convict
bituminous coal miners and operators.
Exceptions were taken by the defense
when the demurrer was OveTruled and
Mr.. Hughes moved that the government
be compelled 10 elect between counts one
and seventeen. holding they were the
same. but the motion was overruled by
the court.
Mr.. Hughes again moved that the gov
eminent be compelled TO elect between
counts one. two. three and four Of the
Indictment, but the motion was over
ruled and exceptions were granted.
Charles W. Miller after two attempts
TO ale q bill Of particulars. was granted
permission BY the court to file the bill.
Dan W. Simms, counsel for the govern
ment, said that It was not the rule OF
the government TO allow the fling OF a
bill Of particulars. but Mr.. Miller said
that this court had granted that premis-
sion heretofore and that he intended
pressing the matter.