Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-05-17

1 u
man in the country today who does
not know that Ii never will be amend
ed by the Congress of the United
states to mean what they wanted
congress to have il mean and which
congress refused to have it meahi 10
get the courts to construe It,
la the now not very short lie that
nave passed in this capital and the
pubic service of the country the most
alarming tendency of this day, IN my
judgment, so far as the safety and IN
tregity of our institutions are con-
cefned is the tendency to judicial leg
lslatlon so that when men having vast
interests, are concerned and they cam
not get the law making power of the
country which controls it to pass the
LEGISLATION they desire, the next thing
they do is to raise the question in
some case, to get the court to so con-
strue the constitution or the statutes
as TO mean what they want it to mean.
mat has not been our practice.
Inc reports of the decisions of this
court are full of cases in which the
iltigants have urged upon this court:
You have, i'm a case heretofore, con-
strued this act of Congress wrongly"
Well says the court that may be
true; but it is an act that relates
to a question OF public policy. We
have announced this as our view. 1t
has gone through the country. and
been accepted and acted upon, -.
l suppose millions of dollars o.
property have changed hands under
tina. decision of 1896 and 1898.
Prosecutions have been instituted.
and | suppose men have been con-
victed and sent to Jail under the anti
trust act, upon the construction that
this court has given to it.
The court. in the opinion in tais
case. says that this act of Congress
means and embraces only unreason-
able restraint of trade-in fiat contra
diction to what this court has said
fifteen years ago that Congress did
not intend.
If YOU will take the trouble to look
through the Federa' Report. you will
find that possibly every federal court
in this country Eas accepted those
original decisions as the final decisions
Of this court as % the meaning of the
act OF Congress.
rule and to say:
1t may be true that in the words
of the statute this contract or this
agreement is in restraint of interstate
trade. 1t may be. But it is law
full restraint of trade. 1t is a lawful
restraint"
Contrary to the decision of this
court. l say contrary to the practice
and usages of this court.
III | mistake no., more than once at
this term lawyer has been compelled
to take his seat to stop tie particu-
lar line of argument that he was pursu-
ing because he WAS arguing against a
former decision IF this court on that
very question. He was wanting 10
break down that former decision.
Within the last hour. at any rate. an
opinion has been handed down for this
court today in which. in a case aris-
ing under the safety appliance act it
was said that such and such was the
safety appliance act. such and such
was its meaning; that this court has
50 regarded it in case decided four
or five years ago. Now, we said. in re-
ply to that:
In view of these facts. we are I'M
willing to regard the question as to the
meaning and scope of the safety appli-
ance act. so far as it relates to auto
matte eouplers on trains moving in
terstate traffic as open to further dis
cussion. If the court erred in the for
mer case, it is open for the parties to
apply for such an amendment of the
statute as Congress may, in it's discre-
ton deem proper. This court ought not
now disturb what has been so widely
accepted and acted upon by the court,
as having been decided in that case
a contrary course would cause inf
mite uncertainty, if not mischief, in
the administration of the law in the
federal courts
1t is quite true that what was said
IN that case concerned only the lives
ana the limbs of railroad employees and
passengers. However important the
law may be, we will not consider the
question as to whether this former
construction is right, because if we are
wrong go to Congress and get the leg
isiation. That is one case; while this
happens to be a case of an overShad-
owing combination of such vast wealth
anu NifoiIiOuS power tildt IL may Ia1rly
be deemed a menace to the general
business interests of the country But
this difference ought not to induce us
to depart from a settled, wholesome
rule which, being faithfully observed.
will guard the integrity and insure the
safety of the nation and of its insti-
tutions against the attack of those who
would undermine all law and who
would, for the sake of present advan-
tages and ends, be willing to undo the
work of the fathers.
Why do / say to undo the works of
the fathers? If there is any feature
In our governmental system that is
now among the nations of the earth, it
Is that provision of the Federal Con-
stitution which divides the depart
ments of government among three CO.
ordinate branches-legislative exeeu-
tive and judicial; and neither branch
has the right to encroach upon the
domain of the other.
Practically the decision today do
not mean the judgment-but parts of
the opinlons-are to the effect prac-
tically that the courts may by mere
/ -. .,s.