The Sentinel=record., 1911-05-17
DISSENSION
 IS YIGOROU;
Continued froii Page one)

nobody or corporation shall make or attempt to enforce contract any contract that in any degree restrains interstate trade'
 Justice Harlan then cited the trans Missoudi case in which violation Of the sherman law was charged and in which it was argued that the act did not embrace reasonable restraint of trade but only unreasonable restraint of trade. He read from the late Jus tice Peckham's ruling on this case as follows:
 While the statute phohibits all combinations in the form of trusts or otherfise, the limitations are not con fined to that form alone. All combi- nations which are in restraint Of trade or commerce are prohibited, whether ill the form of trusts or in any other form.
 Justice Harlan then cited the joint traffic case in which practically the same points were unred fire and which resulted same and said:
 'That being the state of the law, what was to happen? What were these gentlemen to do? Why, there was nothing left to them. This court having three times heard this question argued and reached conclusion, there was nothing left for them but to go to congress and get the Sher- man act amended. that this court could not construe the new act as they had the old one.
 Now, it is laid down in some of the cases and it is common sense, that this court is bound to know what everybody else in the community knows, and, therefore I say without hesitation that everybody knows that there has not been session of con gress since 1896 when that original opinion was delivered, that somebody, taking the opposite view from which the court has said. has not applied to congress to get that law amended; but it never has been amended and there is not a man in the country to- day who does not know that it never will be amended by the congress of the United States to mean what they wanted congress to have it mean, and which congress refused to have 1t mean to get the courts to so con strue it.
 "The most alarming tendency of this Hay, in my judgment, so far as the safety and integrity of our institu- tions are concerned, is the tendency to judicial Legislation so that when men having vast interests are con cerned and they cannot get the law making power of the country which controls is to pass the Legislation they desire, the next thing they do is to raise the question in some case to get tho court to so construe the con stitution, or the statutes to mean what they want it to mean. That has not been our practice. The reports of the decisions of his court are full Of cases in which the litigants have urged upon this court.
 "'You have in case heretofore. construed this act of congress wrong ly.'
 Well,' says the court, that may De true but it is an act that relates to question of public policy We have announced this as our view. It has gone through the country and been ccepted and acted on.
 The court, in the opinion in this case. says that this act of congress means and embraces only unreason able restraint of trade, in fat con tradiction to what this court said fir teen years ago that congress did not intend.
 If you wifi take the trouble to look through the Federal Reporter you will find that possibly nearly ev- cry federal court in this country has accepted those original decisions as the final re@ision of this court as to the meaning of the acts of congress.
 Concluding Justice Harlan said;
 Practically the decision today--l don't mean the iudgment--but parts of the opinion are to the effect prac- tically, that the courts may by mere judicial construction, amend the con stitution of the United States or an act of congress. That 1t strikes me, is mischifvous and that is the part of the opinion that I especially obiect to.
 There is much more that wanted To say, but cared only to emphasize that objection to the opinion of the court"