Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-05-08
SAYS CONGRESS
ALLPOWERFUL
IN WAR TIMES
Simms' Argument in Coal Case
That Lever Act Is
Constitutional.
HUGHES PLEA STRONG

constitutional and that 1t is still in
force, Dan w Simms, special assist
ant United States district attorney,
today took up the argument for the
! government on a motion to quash
the indictment against 1875 coal
operators and miners filed in federal
court yesterday.
Charles Evans Hughes, chief coun-
sci for the defense, completed his
argument on the motion today.
Mr.. Hughes insisted that the Lever act
- class legislation Of the most offensive
character and reiterated his former
statements to the effect that It Is in di-
rect violation OF the constitution Of the
United States.
4 CONTENDS 1T DOESN'T
APPLY TO COAL CASE,
( IL was further said by Mr.. Hughes
| that congress did not apply or intend 70
apply, the law 20 a situation similar to
that on which the coal Indictment is
based.
| He cited the fuel administration
authorized in section % Of the act and
maintained that the special regulations
( for governing the coal industry included
/ In the provisions for the administration
superseded the general provisions CON
/ tained in other sections OF the Lever act
! The president Of the United States was
authorized to establish certain rules and
regulations governing the coal industry
, according to Mr. Hughes. and for this
reason he maintained that congress did
not intend that the general provisions
OF the Lever act should pertain to the
coal industry.
j QUOTES REGULATIONS
OF FUEL ADMINISTRATION
Mr.. Hughes quoted from regulations
established by the fuel administration
and showed thereby that the regulations
themselves limited the distribution of
coal by establishing certain zones in all
/ portions Of the United States.
/ The fuel administration was placed In
/ effect on Aug. %, 1917 and remained in
I force until June OF 1919 when rest ric-
/ tions were lifted
/ However. the fuel administration was
/ once more placed in effect April l, 1920
/ Mr.. Hughes maintained that the
/ offenses alleged IN the indictment were
/ charged during a period when the fuel
administration was in effect and for that
+ reason the indictment is invalid under
/ the Lever act
I
/ Jected 20 by Mr.. Hughes during his sum
ming up Of the argument
He held that the provisions under
which the counts were brought were
/ vague and uncertain and objected TO all
counts based on section 4 on the grounds
that there was no penalty provided for
violation of that section.
Following Mr.. Hughes argument. s.
: D. Miller, counsel for the coal operators.
arose and said that no substance Of the
situation had been overlooked by Mr..
Hughes and rested his motion to quash
on the argument presented.
"The underlying principles IN our con-
tention have been made % stand out
like snow-capped peaks by Mr.. Hughes, -
he said, and nothing additional can
be said for the defendants at the pres
ent time unless as an echo to a great
and ringing bell"
Mr.. Simms, on taking up the argument
In behalf Of the government paid a
tribute 20 the excellence Of Mr.. Hughes
convincing argument and opened the gcv-
ernment contention in support Of the
Lever act
CITES WARTIME
POWER OF CONGRESS.
He held It was constitutional and that
the charges made In the indictment were
bulHficNl anu DAuuANE,
! The power Of congress during war ia
unlimited, Mr.. Simms maintained, and
IL may pass any law for the successful
prosecution Of the war.
Mr.. Hughes contention that the Lever
act was class legislation was disputed
by Mr.. Simms, who said there was no
rule prohibiting congress from passing
legislation pertaining to any certain class
oh element during times OF war.
at this juncture Judge Anderson asked
Mr.. Simms IL congress could pass a law
taxing all persons over five feet and
eight inches in height.
The attorney admitted that he was not
clear on this point.
SAYS ACT DOESN'T
NEED ANCESTORY.
In replying to Mr. Hughes statement
to tn eeffect that the Lever act was with
out ancestry a dnnOt based on any prev
ious line Of legislation, Mr. Simms main
| tained that 1t rested on the definition of
its provisions and did not need an an
Gentry.
He said, in referring to allegations on
the part of the defense that the law is
vague uncertain and indefinite; that
even assuming this to be a fact, It is
within the power Of congress to make a
law on WHICH charges can be made OF
conspiracy to commit an offense which
may be vague and uncertain.
The fifth amendment to the constitu-
| tion was cited to show that any offense
against the law must be clearly defined In
such a manner that the accused may
| know just what limitations Of activity he
/ is under
Mr. smms pointed to the provisions in
| the Indictment charging that there was a
| conspiracy to violate the law and hell
| that such provisions were valid, even
| though the offenses specified may be
vague and uncertain.
! JUDGE ASKS HIM
ANOTHER QUESTION.
| Judge Anderson then interposed a dues-
ton as to why congress did not say that
In framing the bill, and Mr.. Simms Of
! fered to quote from a supreme court de-
| cision bearing out the point, but failed
to find the exact PASSAGE.
"I think" said the court, ''that the
process Of reasoning by which that deci-
sion was reached would prove interest
ing"
In regard to the existence of a state Of
war at the present time, Mr.. Simms main
tanned that there is no authority in our
code of government giving any court the
right to make decision on this point.
He said that provisions of the constitu-
ton were such that war could only be
declared at an end by the Legislative
branch Of the government.
JUDGE SAYS Law NOT
DEPENDENT ON PEACE.
Judge Anderson called attention to the
provisions of the Lever act which, he
said, did not say that a formal end of
the war must be reached in order to end
the effect of the measure.
He expressed an opinion that procla-