Show GOAL OA lAND GASES CASES i iARE ARE NOT AffECTED Ruling of Supreme Court in i Williamson Timber FI Frauds allds I Causes Comment I II I ATTORNEYS WANT OPINION May Have Bearing Soaring on Utah Fuel Trial Now Pending Hereto Here Heror N to r little Interest has haJ be been n aroused by tho decision Of or tho the United States Stat g supreme court In tho the case ens of or former Congressman J J. N N. Williamson of Oregon Ore Ons gait gon oli convicted of or subornation of perjury Jury In connection with tho tine Oregon Ore 1 land nd frauds In which it was held that thal un under en- en and the tho tier der tho the stone stono anti and timber act at r regulations regulation of ot the commissioner r ot on till general ral land office tins tho motive of or tins tin was irrelevant and at nJ Midi cinch could not be the thc basis baAls of oC subornatIon nation of oC perjury a and 11 1 th therefore time tho lower court erred In so Instructing llIn the jury Jui With the rulin of the supreme curt commit coin comes comos os up nm tho the question of its Ita effect Heet on the tho prosecutions now InS being pushed p by the tho department of ot Justice tlc against violators of oC tho tine timber ansi and coal land hand statutes The These e cases are nrc now l-fors' l time the courts in most mont all 1111 of or time tho western I states and nil alt are arc snore more or 01 less INS o of a 11 similar nature In Utah at the present time the coal fraud cases against tho timo Utah Fuel company company com corn pany and others are arc pending In lii the federal fed fed- eral cIal court With Ith reference to lo Ih time tho d ml 1 cislon of or the thc supreme court ns MI affecting those these c eases cases one ono of ot th the tho attorneys S 'S for forthe tho the government paid pahl I Iun f un C ti II Head lc c No 00 lawyer until ho has received ed a i copy COP of ot the thc opinion itself and has carefully care care- I fun fully read rend It could possibly express an aim Int Intelligent opinion on what was wn ex exactly ox- ox netly decided by tho supreme s court Prom From the thc press r reports ports It seems clear the case caRe against Williamson on the ground of subornation of oC perjury presents presents pre pro an entirely different legal question ques ques- tion than tho the on one Involved ot In the construction construction con corn of tho coal oal statute when n road read In connection with the conspiracy consIstency statute It Is IA very sery cr easy aey to distinguish between be ho tween a It case cage Involving perjury r rami anti and of perjury penury and a n cu ii- ii I wherein a n. conspiracy to defraud url t tin tic h. h United States In an any mn manner mannor is con iUn corned In other oth words that while n it I might not be hr possible to maintain nn and ani l on a n perjury charge chargo l' l it woul I bo be o comparatively easy as to maintain n a J I Icons cons conspiracy 1 to defraud such ludl a as In Is ln-i ln o voiced old ld In in the tl coal oal land lo crises sP 1 I I |