Indiana daily times., 1920-05-08

Continued From Page One.\
dictment against both coal operators and
miners
He referred TO the measure as an arbi-
trary bit Of class legislation and main
tanned that IL is in direct violation of the
fifth and sixth amendments Of the con-
stitution of the United States.
In the motion 10 quash the indictment
IL was held that various counts In the in.
dictment failed to state facts sufficient
to constitute an Offense against the laws
OF the United States; that the Lever act
is unconstitutional and void: that during
the period described in the indictment It
was without support In any authority
conferred upon congress by the United
States; that the statutory provisions are
in direct violation Of the fifth amend
ment in that they operate as a depriva-
tion Of liberty and property without due
process of law and that the provisions
are furthermore in violation CT the sixth
amendment in that they provide for Grim
inal prosecution without informing the
accused as TO the accusation.
1t was further held that the Indictment
returned is vague. indefinite. uncertain.
ambiguous, defective and insufficient a,
law.
HUGHES ATTACK
MAsTERLY ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Hughes attack on the Lever act
was embodied in what Is probably the
most mastery argument on the law yet
heard In an American courtroom.
He left no clause untouched. carefully
considering the various provisions Of the
act from the standpoint Of the coal in
dictment and insisting that IL was not
only in violation of the constitution. but
contrary to the American principles of
liberty and justice.
The exception under the act. which
makes its provisions fnapplics bic to
farmers. stock raisers and agriculturists
was held as arbitrary and pointed to as
an unfair measure OF class legislation
Mr.. Hughes placed much emphasis on
his point that the Lever act is vague and
falls to define any onense under the law.
He maintained that the provision for
determining an excessive price placed q
responsibility on the jury. which body.
II was said. must necessarily determine
and define just what an excessive price
might he. That there Is no legislative
basis for the measure on which an ex-
/ cesslve price might be determined, was
pressed by the attorney
In comparing the Lever act TO tie
Sherman antitrust act, Mr. Hughes said
the latter measure has n long ancestry
upon which decisions might be based
while the Lever act was a baby found
on a doorstep without any ancestry It.
support II.
He held that in passing the act con
gress stepped into n new field and took
lE larger scope Of legislation which
made it incumbent on that body TO
make definite provisions in the iegisia-
ton on which ofenses might be deter
mined
SCORES RECENT
PRICE LEGISLATION.
In his reference to arbitrary laws and
wartime enforcement he scored recent
activities in price legislation.
I'VE have department OF Justice" be
said. which goes to people without au-
thority and says. unless you do so and
so you will be indicted
1T has come 10 pass that an admins
trative Office is doing this without wal
rant"
Judge Anderson apparently agreed
with the statement and interrupted by
saying:
Yes, and it is wonder to me that
people have stood II as long as they
have.
We have a food administrator down
here who not long ago fined a man
5000 which was distributed among the
at is done because these people do
not have enough nerve TO come into
court with such cases"
TIME CONGRESS WOKE
UP TO SITUATION"
"Tn an American community this is an
lntolerable thing" declared Justice
Hughes
"It's time that congress should re-
alize IT can pass laws that will hit at
every crime, and it is time for congress
to learn that It must pass laws with a
definite meaning"
Mr.. Hughes also attacked the "pre-
tended state of war under which the
country is now laboring, saying it is
nothing but a pretense TO give congress
regulatory power.
During the course Of his arguments Mr.
Hughes quoted many authorities and
cited past rulings Of various courts.
He even went so far as to quote an
old Chinese law.
All motions to abate and quash the
indictment were overruled by Judge An
derson and the case rested today on ar
guments on the last motions by counsel
for the defense and the government