Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-11-27

provisions of the act and that their
licenses to engage In the business of
mining and selling coal in the State and
that their properties will be seized under
State court receiverships and operated by
| receivers appointed by the State courts"
and thac Eschbach has repeatedly
| threatened the plaintiffs and others en-
gagged in mining coal in Indiana that
martial law will be declared and the
State militia will be sent to seize the
| plaintiffs mines"
| Mr. Martindale contended that such
/ public threats Of Eschbach endeavor
| to "terrorize the plaintiffs and others
engaged in the business Of mining coal
in Indiana, to surrender their property,
property rights and liberty to the Special
Coal and Food Commission of Indiana"
/ and claimed that unlese the court issues
/ an injunction. the coal commission will
proceed to execute the threats" of Eseh-
/ bach and agents of the commission.
OTHER POINTS IN
ATTORNEYS STATEMENT.
/ Mr.. Martindale argued that such actions
and threats will interrupt aud destroy
! the business of the plaintiffs"
Other points advanced in the argument
Of Mr.. Martindale, were as follows:
I tion is invalid because it permits Of ar
bitrary and reasonable interference
with the rights Of the plaintiffs to freely
engage in the business of mining coal.
/ That the $50 license fee required Of the
/ coal companies mining coal in Indiana Is
( In excess Of the cost Of issuing the
| license.
That section of the act is invalid be-
cause 1t requires the plaintiffs TO pay
n license fee beyond the period fixed
I for the expiration OF the commission.
! That &c prevents the coal companies
| from the liberty and freedom to con
| tract for the sale Of their property.
| That It compels the coal companies to
/ furnish a sufficient quantity of coal TO
/ supply domestic demand regardless Of
existing contracts held by the coal com
/ panies.
/ That no provisions are made to control
! payment for the coal by those to whom
/ the commission orders coal to be
| shipped. -...-
/ That no mine owner could afford to
/ dlsobey any order Of the coal commits
sion or invoke the jurisdiction Of any
court TO test the validity CT the law, ex'
cept at the risk Of confscation OF It's
/ property and Imprisonment for long
/ terms at the State Penal Farm.
That the orders OF the coal commission
impaired the obligations onw existing be-
tween the plaintiff coal companies and the
/ ogle Coal Company and the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company.
MANY OTHER REASONS
ALSO PUT FORWARD.
Many other reasons were advanced by
Mr. Martindale for the necessity of the
granting Of the injunction by the court
/ Mr.. Martlndale contended that the
Vigo Coal Company. on April l. 1920
entered into a contract with the Ogle
! Coal Products Company to sell It's COM
/ plete output OF coal from certain OF It's
mines to the Ogle Company and that the
Ogle Coal Company entered into con.
/ tract with the Pennsylvania railroad TO
/ furnish the coal 30 obtained to the rail
road In turn the railroad was to give
a full car supply to the mines.
Mr.. Martindale claims that this Is al
lowed by the Interstate Coal Commission
/ II the mines give the entire output for
railroads used In Interstate commerce.
DISCUSSES VARIOUS
/ ORDERS OF BOARD.
/ Afr. Martindale devoted some time to
| discussing an order OF the commission
| requiring the Vandslia Coal Company TO
/ ship q certain AMOUNT OF coal TO the In
D
was issued Nov. 1 and counsel maintain ned
that the company had no coal available
| for the purpose OF complying with the
| order and could not comply with the
order except by violating valid con
tracts existing between the company, the
! Ogle Coal Company and the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company. he pointed out that
the Vsndalia Coal Company had no con-
tracts with the Indiana Coal Company.
Mr.. Martindale showed that on Nov. T.
| 1920, the commission ordered the FigO
/ Coal Products Company to ship n spe-
clfc amount OF coal 10 the Brewer Milling
/ Company at Gosport. Mr.. Martindale
contended that the Vigo Coal Products
Company in order to avoid the penalties
OF the statutes, notified the coal commits
sion that it would ship coal as ordered
upon the receipt Of certified check from
the persons designated as consignee for
such shipments
Counsel declared that on Nov. 6 the
/ plaintiffs were ordered to appear be
fore the coal commission to show cause
why their licenses should not be revoked
The hearing was continued and Mr.. Mar
tindale commended that the coal commits
sion unless enJOined and restrained win
revoke the licenses Of the Yig0 Coal Prod
ucts Company, which was issued for the
purpose OF permitting the company to
mine coal.
Counsel contended that the mines OF
the company would be ruined by being
forced into idleness and 1t would cost
$50, 900 to put the mines back into work
able condition.
Mr. Martindale reviewed at length the
organizing of the Vandalia Coal Com
pany, the amount of money spent In Oh
tanning vast coal holdings and various
steps taken by the company In protect
ing its interests
SPECIFIC ACTION
ASKED OF COURT.
The plaintiff coal companies are asking
! that the special coal and food com
mission Of Indiana be restrained and
enjoined from doing the following acts:
From demanding, receiving or collect
ing from the plaintiffs any further In
stalments of the special tax of cent on
coal mined In the State.
From making and from inforcing
against the plaintiffs any order regulat-
ing and fixing the price at which coal
mined by the plaintiffs should be sold.
From ordering, requiring or direct
ing the plaintiffs to furnish, sell and
deliver coal In specific shipments to
persons, firms or corporations to be des-
| ignated by the commission.
From making any order or inforcing
any order seeking to require the plain
tihs to produce and sell, or offer for
sale in this State, n sufficient quantity
OF coal to supply domestic needs.
SUTHERLAND TAKES
U PTHE ARGUMENT.
When Mr. Martindale had completed
his argument and reviewing the bill OF