Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-01-12
u. S. JUDGE AND
LAWYER DIFFER
Retail Coal Dealer Skirmish
=; Is Held.

There is no question but that Howard
S. Young and James w. Noel, who re-
ceived fees of $500 and $4,000. respec-
lively, from the State of Indiana two
days ago for legal services in defending
the Indiana coal and food commission,
earned a large share Of their fees today
when they appeared before Judge Albert
3. Anderson in Federal Court to argue
the motion to dimiss the amended com
plant of z. Il. Heller & Co, retail coal
dealers of this city, against the com
mission. But in view of the rapid fire
of questions propounded by Judge An
derson and his frankly stated divergence
of opinion with them on many points
of their arguments it is doubtful whether
the state got value received for it's ST.
800
The case, which attacks the right of
the commission to regulate the retail
coal business, without any regard to
the questions OF the rights of the COM
mission over operators or wholesalers,
has been pending since last August, and
the hearing was on a motion to dismiss
fled by attorneys for the commission.
Mr. Young made the argument for the
commission. but In less than five minutes
found himself at marked variance with
the court on a number of vital matters.
of retail coal prices was within the Ju
risdiction of the Legislature under the
exercise of the States police powers and
by the fact that coal was the one prime
necessity in modern life, thus identify
ing it with the public interest.
In support of this contention, he cited
a number of cases, but Judge Anderson
refused to see the application of the
cases quoted to the situation. saying that
there was no legal precedent parallel to
this case and that the Indiana coal COM
mission law was the widest sweep OF
authority ever claimed for state powers,
being far wider than the Indiana insur-
ance law IN its application and that there
was no direct authority on the subject.
He said that in his opinion no attempt
to fix prices of commodities ever had been
upheld by the higher courts.
THE next thing will be to appoint
commission to FIX attorneys fees, evOn
in great emergencies" remarked the court.
In view Of the SIT 800 paid to Mr.. Young
and Mr.. Noel for legal services a chuckle
swept the courtroom, particularly among
the coal dealers present.
Judge Anderson said the conditions
under which the bill was passed original
ly had now disappeared and that there
seemed TO be no doubt In his mind that
the law was enacted by the Legislature
while IN the heat OF feelings"
when legislation is put through In
heat my business ia to scrutinize 1t care
Z fully" Judge Anderson said. "Emerg-
ency sometimes makes bad law, and II is
my business to standby the old Stand
ard. Our institutions. the Constitution.
the family, are built on the doctrine OF
private ownership"
Later on IN the hearing in answer to
plea Of the necessity of the legislation
he said, Maybe this is why 'LecessIty
knows no law"
The coal company was represented by
Frederick Matson and Clarence Nichols,
and the first argument for the plaintiff
was made by Mr.. Nichols. He pointed
out that the retail business had nothing
whatever to do with tne coal shortage
existing at the time the law was enacted.
that the retailer merely pought coal and
then resold 1t. He said only monopoles
and questions affecting public health
and morals were subject to State regu-
Iation, and that the retail coal business
could not be classified under this head.
/ He asserted that an individual had
/ right to buy and sell as he saw at as
/ long as he did not enter INTO a combina-
/ tion with others.
That is an old-fashioned doctrine
the court said, that man owns the
/ house he has bought am paid for and
I the clothes he has paid for, and some
way or other I am inclined TO believe
that way myself"
The hearing was resumed at ? o'clock.