Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-05-26


sections of the act under which the
as discriminatory" arbitrary" lob
Q Immediately after the ruling was
made Charles Evans Hughes, attorney for
| the miners and operators, filed a de-
murrer against the FIVE points of the In
/ dictments which remain and the gov
ernment fled an exception to the ruling
against the thirteen points quashed.
HUGHES REFERS TO
|" OMNIBUS LANGUAGE"
The remaining five points are based
on section 8 of the Lever act, which
Judge Hughes declared to be indefinite
and composed OF omnibus language
Your honor, I don't stand here to hawn
''7"1 "sNane Indictment or prevent them
from being brought into court men whs
should be indicted, but these men, If it
/ please your honor. should not be hailed
here and made TO answer such charges
couched in such omnibus language"
argued Judge Hughes
Emphaticaly the former United States
supreme court judge insisted that the
five disputed indictment counts failed
to particularlze sufficiently to bring the
men to trial
ANA UdS6 OL THESE uFe counts
fails to advise us what coal these men
are said to have refused to mine what
mines they refused to operate; what
shipments they refused to deliver; what
details constitute the alleged breach of
( the law, when II all happened, and IL
! gives us no basis for refuting or max
ing an adequate defense Of the broad
indefinite charges made in the counts"
concluded Mr.. Hughes
A formidable array of law books were
banked on the table before Mr. Hughes.
and quickly he took up law book after
law book, to read passages to support
his arguments.
The sections declared unconstitutional
by Judge Anderson are section +, which
makes unlawful the destruction of food
and the necessities and other acts de-
/ signed to curtail the food and fuel sup
ply, and section %. which prohibits
boarding.
The court held that section 4, as
amended, which excepts farmers, gar
deners horticulturists ranchmen and
other producers of food from its provi-
sions. is arbitrary, not natural or rea-
sonable, Repayment to due process Of
law"
HUGHES IN COURTROOM
WHEN RULING READ.
The motion to quash. which was fled
in behalf of the miners and operators by
Mr.. Hughes, who was in the courtroom
when the ruling was read, took up the
various sections of the law separately.
The court followed the same rule IL
rendering its decision.
Under the heading. "As to the va
ldity of amended Section and Sec
tion 26,'' the court says:
Under this head it is urged that each
/ Of these sections contains an arbitrary
classification, and that congress is pre-
ciuded by the fifth amendment, as are
the state by the fourteenth amendment.
from making such classification. In other
words, the defendants claim such clas-
sihcation is repugnant to the due nro-
cess clause of the fifth amendment"
The court then quotes The fourteenth
amendment, which prohibits any state to
deprive person of life, liberty or prop
erty without due process of law. and tie
fifth amendment, which provides the Same
so far as the government is concerned
BY the simplest and plainest rules of
construction the words, due process of
law must have the same meaning in the
fifth and fourteenth amendments" the
court holds.
1t then proceeds to quote decisions
sustaining this point.
ton and in Section 20 reasonable or
arbitrary" the court asks.
MERE CLASSIFICATION
is NOT SUFFICIENT.
The decision declares that the mere
fact Of classification is not sufficient, but
that ft must always rest upon some
difference which bears a reasonable and
just relation to the act in respect TO
which the classification is proposed, and
can never be made arbitrarily and with
out any such basis"
He cites further authority and then
proceeds:
"Now let us apply the rule Of this
case to amended section 4. The Lever
act is entitled; An act to provide fur
ther for the national security and de-
fense by encouraging the production,
conserving the supply, and controlling
the distribution of food products and
fuel
I'm the first section of the act foods.
feeds and fuel are called necessaries
and the prohibitions are as to neces-
saries thus defined. BY amended sec
tion + farmers, gardeners, horticulturists,
I vineyardists, planters. ranchmen, dairy
men. stockman and other agriculturists
persons who produce food and feeds
with respect to the products produced
or raised upon land owned. leased or
cultivated by them, may wilfully de-
stroy such foods and feeds for the pur-
pose of enhancing the price or restrict
ing the supply thereof; may knowingly
commit waste or willfully permit pre-
ventable deterioration of such foods and
feeds on or in connection with their
production. manufacture or distribution;
may hoard such products; may monop-
olize or attempt to monopolize such
products; may engage in any discrim-
inatory and unfair, or any deceptive or
wasteful practice or device, or may
make any unjust or unreasonable rate
of charge in handling or dealing in or
with sucn products, and may conspire,
combine agree or arrange with any other
person to limit the facilities for produc-
ing, or to restrict the supply, or to re-
strict the distribution, or to prevent.
limit or lessen the production in order
to enhance the price or exact excessive
prices for such products, with impunity.
while all other persons are to be pun
lshed as criminals for doing the same
acts, including those who produce, sup
ply or distribute the other necessary
fuel.
THE section so provides. notwithstand-
ing the fact that the excepted and the
included persons are all in the same gem
. oIo hot &c hov orc al oil