Show COURT TAKES KANSAS GAS t CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT ARGUMENT IN IMPORTANT ACTION ENDS ENDS' Questions of State o or Fed era oral eral Public Land tand Control Con Con- 4 tra Involved DENVER Cob Colo Oct 1 The Tho Tho Natural Gas Gus company caso liso was u-as at taken under advisement al b by tho the United Unite States Estates circuit court of or appeals shortly before noon tOlla today The Tile closing argument was waa made b by former Federal Judge John F. F Philips of Kansas City representing ng the ers receivers appointed for lor tho the Kansas S Natural Gas Gag company compan b by United States States- District Judge John C. C Pollock These Those receivers appealed from an order o of oC United States District Judge John A A. Marshall of Utah requiring them to turn oVer oYer tho property of the tho company to q re receivers receiver appointed b by the district court of Montgomery county Kansas Kansas' In his argument Jud Judge o Philips subjected sub sub- the hun kansas as antitrust statute to a critical analysis contending that it only prohibited monopoly brought about by the combination of ot two t two or more marc per persons er sons sons sons- From this he hc reasoned that the tho monopoly alleged to have ha been s secured cured by the Kansas Natural Gas Gaa company compan bein be be- being in ing brought about b. b by purchase not bv by voluntary oJ combination n was not illegal l lunder under tho the terms of the statute Hence Mence according ng to the tho argument m nt the district court of Montgomery county count could not legally appoint rec receivers The company cOD constructed a i a flume aUDIe and aud reservoir on government gO land Jand which Int later later later-in r-in r in was 1902 was was withdrawn from entry Tho The company relies upon the act et of con congress ress enacted in lS IJ grant grant- i 1 tri ht of WH way over oer go lands I It further contends that th the state states state's 8 right of eminent domain over public land is superior to tho federal go guern- guern em eminent's ments ment's ment a interest t as ns proprietor Th The government o er holds that the adol act of f 1866 has bag been beo l. l virtually repealed b by t cn enactment of later Infer le legislation on and that the department nt of or agri agriculture is isau- isau au authorized u. u to withdraw w land entry and forbid its 50 for the purpose ef it generating J ne i al and j l t |