The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1909-11-29
INTERPRETING LAWS.

A great deal of the time of courts
Is taken IN Interpretation OF laws
II seems that much of this time
might be avoided, If the law-making
bodies would make the laws so plain
that he who runs may read and un-
derstand. Take the Standard Oil case,
for instane, that has just been de-
cided by the circuit court, and now
goes TO the supreme court, on the
claim that the circuit court did not
give correct construction of the
law. s--ss
Is II possible that our statutory
language has be- ONE to stale AID
meaningless that it is all subject to
lniscomprehension, and requires re-
peated judicial opinion expended up
on II before it is ineligible? The
Sherman law defines monopoly,
and for nearly twenty years there
has been a question as to what that
definition means. Now it goes TO the
supreme court and in the course OF
some months that august body may
make up Us mind that what it means
is Just the opposite to what congress
intended 1t should mean.
u Now L does seem to an ordinary
wayfarer, that congressman, TO
10 whom is paid a high salary in
order to get the best talents, so 10
speak, ought to be able to write a
law SO plan that anybody who reads
could understand il. There IS so
much bother expense and injustice
in interpreting law that the leglsla-
ture should see that the law is ex-
pressed in unmistakable terms, so
that the iGea OF court telling what a
law meant, would be in the nature
of an lmpertinence.
mittee should go over it with the
most inclsive criticism, cut off every
superfluity, plane down every phrase
and make every word count with
Anglo-Saxon directness. That is
what would be done probably IL we
selected our lawmakers with refer
ence to tneir ability as well as 70
their politics.--O. S. Journal.
Usually the opinions of the able
editor of the Journal are entitled to
eonsidera:e attention but the above
is fairly subject to criticism. How
ever, 1t IS too much to expect of 0
man that he nit the bulls eyes every
shot.
IL is the proper business of law.
makers to use plain, specific and di-
rect language in the draughting II
laws and We presume ninety-fye OF
every hundred legislators follow that
plan. But some lawmakers are not
hnguists and have not cultivated
style and sententiousness. Hence, in
drawing up their bills they can dc
only their best. II their phrasing is
infeilitous and their rhetoric inyolv.
ed and their language cloudy, that is
their misfortune. Take a hundred
men from the ranks OF educated
people and If ten OF them write the
language with precision and force.
IL will be a high average. Conse.
quently 4 may be that not always
Ie chosen the clearest and most SEN
tentious expressions by our law-mak'
ers. But that they write and rewrits
their bills; that they trim them
with criticism and level them with
the roller OF an informal judgment
that they cut out redundancies and
plane down their phrases with accur-
acy, we verify believe.
lne theory that the lawyers rar-
~ cases Up to the higher courts be-
cause OF the neglect and carelessness
OF those who draw up the bills TO be
submitted for legislation is unsound
il one had Demosthenes, Addison, Nc
Cauley, webster, Patrick Henry and
Editor Wilson 10 plane down the
language OF his statutes these corpor'
alton lawyers would carry the case
up. just think OF the reasons they
nave.
rlrst. there is the pure unadul-
terated russedness OF some Of therl
which would be sufficient-just theiI