Show I f f t fT IV M 0 I FEDERAL 14 COURT RULES a RO ROBBINS INS MUST lUST MAI E pLUs PLEA IN COAL CASES A decision of considerable importance was given yesterday afternoon in the tho I Federal court by Judge Marshall in reference to the coal coil land laws The Tho court overruled tho the demurrer of Don C. C I Robbins Bobbins and instructed tho the defendants to plead under indictment Last January an in indictment was ns found by nr the tho grand ranil jur jury a Bobbins Bob nob bins blDR and three thres others for fOi alleged ld violation violation viola viola- tion of the coal land laws In the proceedings proceedings pro pro- g a demurrer was H interposed I by time Hie defendants and SUHl the time case caSl ar argued at t length The contention of the tl defense 39 that no law was aA on the statute books upon which a criminal action for a violation vio yin lation of the public coal land and Jaw law could be he that time tIlE coal land law la I was ra not broad enough Dou h to come ome within thin the pro provisions of the revised re statutes of the United States Tho Th Government contended that what a a. person cannot do himself direct he cannot do by othera others oth oth- I ers era and be within tho the law a Tho The case is of interest bt because cause of tho the fact that I it I is i the 1 first opinion given givon bv In an any court in tho the United States defining tho the act relating to to a violation on of the coal land and law Jav It decides f practically that persons may IDa be he proceeded aJ against criminally crim crim- for a violation of tho the coal land I law Jaw under tinder section iO 1 of the revised statutes Th The follo following n is an excerpt of or Jud Judge c cI I Marshall Marshall's a decision This Indictment Is drawn under tinder section see sec l tion 0 of the tho RE I Revised d Statutes of ot the thet I t United Slat States s. s It I is challenged 1 h by d de demurrer de- de In Jn substance It that I the h four defendants conspired together tn to defraud the States of tile the title I to the th use utile and possession of or large tr tracts of ot coal land situated tN In 3 and nd aggregating aggregating ag ag- ag- ag gre mo more than acres b by procuring pro pro- procuring curing other parties to enter the time land landIn landIn In F parcels as IS cash purchasers purchaser but with mone money mony furnished b by the tha de defendants defendants de- de and In tru trust t for them with Intent to defraud the United States and th r by obtain tn to coal lands which obtain in th they could not directly their own names name The Th various entries of the land h by the parties Induced to act net for tor the c conspirators n tors are charged as acts to effect pct th 5 object of ot In the th conspiracy In or of I I object of ot In the th conspiracy In or of orthe orthe orthe the demurrer It Li Is contended that the scheme outlined Is not fraudulent within the them meaning of the tha statute It Is admitted that under the tho decision In the case of or the United States versus Trinidad Coal and amid Coke company compan 1 U. U S s. th the transaction transaction trans trans- action con contemplated d was Illegal the title tHle acquired b by the men and holdIng holdIng hold- hold Ing log under them with notice voidable and amid that a court of or equity would treat the title as fraudulently But it II Is argued that this fraud II Is purely constructive con con- i a a. mere fiction of or a R court of or chancery for tor the purpose of affording a R I remedy and as such not within section that this section being penal must I be ba strictly construed only onh as at common law n ns as distinguished from constructive I The ThC position as to a strict construction of section HO Is well taken but the tho de defendants defendants dp- dp argue le that the tho provisions of or orI the statute regulating th the acquisition of ot title to coal lands from the time Government Go I and purely beneficial In their nature are subject to the same la strict construction when n incidentally relevant In a a. criminal crim mat inal cano case and that If It po so construed the Interpretation placed upon these statutes In the Trinidad case I Justified In a suit In equity Quit Is ia Inadmissible In a criminal pro pro- I find no authority for or this contention hut htmL It Is I necessary r to discuss It here as 81 as In the case casc cited the th Supreme Su Sti- Sti pr preme m court construed th the various statutory statu tOr tory to provisions BS RS plainly and obviously I prohibiting time the scheme schema here In question and anti even t In a n. criminal proceeding the statute cannot a not b be bl so I st strictly lc ly construed HS R 10 to ItS us ana sue meanIng meaning mean- mean In Ing But was WM It a II scheme to fr defraud under tinder s section It Is II said Mold that no false lee representation was w made that the various applicants for the tho land simply did not voluntarily disclose th the true trus facts acts but that there waa no ho action of ot fraud ac- ac at common law It Is fa true that In order to fall tall within the prohibition of ot section HO time tilE conspiracy must mURt contemplate contemplate con con- template active deception and amid that the defendants defendant did not mint stand In an any such uCh position to the thc Government as to require a disclosure r of or all material facts provided pro pro- vided vidad nothing wax waR done to mislead d. But the thA defendants are aro not advantaged anta ed I by br this admission llon Tho The gist of ot tho the conspiracy conspiracy con con- was vas to give iVI the the- entry a false fabe I appearance for the l purpose of ot ml mislead mislead- Ins ing The Time real reRI purchasers were vere the conspirators con con- and pretended purchasers were vere put forward to conceal the real transaction tion tiomi and to Induce a conveyance ron which would not net otherwise have havo been made Silence In I view v. v of ot tlc tie misleading appearances ap ap- ap- ap would ouM have a an aim 1 active property property prop prop- erty and he be In effect an nn affirmative representation rep rep- r that the tho apparent facts were I I the real rc facts Ju Judge so Marshall In support of his ion cites authorities both State and Federal Fed Fed- eral ml and concludes b by overruling overriding the tho demurrer demurrer de de- de- de and requiring the tho defendants to plead to the Indictment I |