The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1909-05-06

'hS "hS N
Hudson Company without comment,
and therefore apparently treating it as
unworthy w Of discussion.
The uncertainty of courts, of lawyers
and Of human language was thus strik-
ingly illustrated when the Supreme
Court unanimously accepted the con-
tention raised by the Delaware and Hud-
son Company and rejected the narrow
and literal construction, in which ap-
~parently all other counsel and Judges
who had occasion to pass upon the
question had concurred. As the whole
question turns upon a word OF common
speech and involves no such legal tech
n~icality as would be left to the exclu-
sive judgment Of lawyers and Judges.
THE SUN feels at liberty to give its
opinion in this conflict Of opinion be-
tween 80 manys disagreeing doctors.
Recognizing the ~inaccuracy and often
carelessness of the language used In
legislative statutes, and the inconsider-
ate haste with which many statutes are
framed, and also the inevitable imper-
f~ections of language, no rule of con-
struction either in courts or in every
day life is 60 common as that which re-
quires that only a reasonable construc-
ton should be imputed to that which
either a Legislature or an individual
[says. Applying this rule of common
sense as well as of law to the question
under consideration, it would seem TO
us manifest that the literal construction
which the Circuit Court and many
lawyers put upon this statute was,
apart from the history Of the times,
impossible. If coal or any other com
modify were rendered to a railroad for
shipment, how could it determine that
either the coal or the commodity had
been previously mined or manufactured
by it; or even if it could, Of what
possible importance could it be whether
that was the fact? The evil at which
the commodities clause aimed was
clearly the mischief Of permitting a car
rier to transport a commodity which it
had not only mined and manufactured
but which it also owned at the time OF
transportation. The great purpose OF
the law was at an end when the carrier
no longer had any interest in the thing
thus transported.
This argument would eel to us' con-
elusive were it not for the history OF the
times and the spirit in which the COM
modities clause was both originally con-
ceived and enacted; and If both the Cir
cult Court and the profession generally
accepted an unreasonable and absurd
construction of the statute, they had as
justification an anomalous political con-
dition, under which the ordinary pre-
sumptions Of r~easonableness OF inten-
ton we're wholly lacking.
In other words, the contention OF the
counsel for the Delaware and Hudson,
which the Supreme Court has now sus-
tanned, rests upon a major premise
which would be ordinarily sound but as
to which in the present case considers
BILE doubt can be justly entertained.
This major premise was that Congress
could not intend any result that would
be plainly unreasonable and oppressive.
The minor premise was that the literal
construction of the act was both un-
reasonable and oppressive. If both
premises were sound, the conclusion
would inevitably follow that the literal
and narrow construction Of the legisla-
ton must be rejected.
The difficulty is with the major prem
Use. This country was then passing
through an emotional frenzy at which
future generations will marvel, and Of
which the present generation will at nc
distant date be heartily ashamed. The
ordinary Prescriptions Of reasonable
ness are therefore in%applicable. Laws
were passed without rhyme or reason
and without the slightest regard for their
mischiev6us consequences. The de-
structive and malign influence Of one
personality had 80 inflamed the public
mind and had put so great a premium
upon demagoguery that the Legisla-
lures of both State animation We'd with
each other in passing laws without the
slightest regard for their possible con-
sequences or inherent justice. For the
time it seemed as il property rights, 30
far as the legislative branch of the Gov
eminent was concerned, were as cheap
in the United States rs in many South
American republics. The old distinc-
ton between meum and tuum seemed for
the time abolished. When State Leg
islatures could without deliberation pass
two cent rate laws without respect to
whether the territory was densely or
sparsely inhabited, and when the then
President Of the United States could
gravely advocate a progressive inherl-
lance tax that would almost wholly con-
fiscate so-called swollen fortunes after
the death Of their owners, it is apparent
that the ordinary prescriptions Of rea-
condolences could not be invoked.
1t was in this spirit that the COM
modities clause was enacted, and no
chapter of our legislative history ever
showed moro strongly the cowardice Of
our public men in recent years and their
indifference to consequences when their |
political fortunes were at stake. The
statute was avowedly passed to compel
railroad companies which had without
protest or challenge owned their coal
mines-in some instances for seyenty.