The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-12-13

language educator or common user
Of the English language today that
is educated scientifically or otherwise
in the construction and meaning Of
pure English. that would have SAID
of the phrase, "in restraint as com
bined with and modifying and quail
flying the words trade" and "com-
merce," in a criminal law, and the
word "RESTRAINT"' as placed there
in that statute by scme of the best
lawyers of Jurisprudence, unqualified
10y any word, phrase. adjunct. clause
o. sentence. THAT 1T MEANT ''IJN-
REASONABLE" RESTRAINT. You
can't flnd. one that would have fol-
lowed the holding of the court. 1t
said what it meant. its meaning was
very plain, and 1t meant what 1t said.
.If II had meant. or the CONGRESS
THAT PASSED THE ACT had
meant that the "RESTRAINTs' must
be UNREASONABLE, in order tina.
the contract, combination or conspir-
acy, should be illegal and criminal,
then the proper authority would have
said so But they did not say so.
AANN HiibAA sdlu llldl EVERY con-
tract combination. conspiracy in re-
straint is Illegal and shall be pun
ished as a crime. 1t did not say in
reasonable" restraint. 1t did not say
"scintilla" restraint. 1t did not say
in gross restraint. We have so much
right to construe 1t as being modi-
fled Gin our mind) one as the other,
small as great and vice versa. 1t
said "in restraint" 1t matter not how
much or little that restraint. Ii IT Is
restraint" That is what the law says
and that is what it means. Il il not
whether the law is reasonable or un-
reasonable. or whether the restraint
is reasonable or unreasonable, 1t is
whether II is LAW. whether Il Is
restraint" If il is it Is Illegal. IL is a
CRIME. If IL IL unreasonable.
either the law. or restraint, or both
II Is not in the province OF the
COURT to legislate that IL is "un-
reasonable" but it is in the province
of the court to construe the law from
its language as used according to
common acceptation of the English
language among the people at large
who are TO be bound or to be loosed
by It, and If the law Is unreasonable
or obnoxious, this is no business OF
the court to legislate 1t as unreason-
BILE or obnoxious, but construe It prop
erly, and let the EXECUTIVE enforce
II, and If in its enforcement II works
unreason and Consciousness ct may
tn some) to the majority OF the peo-
pie, causing them to instruct con-
gress, to amend, modify or repeal
the law, then let congress as the
proper authority only amend, modify
or repeal II. Ii is not the honest man
or men who are asking its amendment
or rO1eal for indefiniteness. 1t Is the
fellows who know it is too definite.
too certain. too sure. But we think
not drastic enough in its penalty, for
1t is the enforced penalty OF the law
that cures the diseases of the body
polite, and such penalty must be
adequate to the disease.
Do not AMEND the law. only |
make its teeth stronger, firmer, |
sharper. its jaw wider. truer, frmer
ln1 self-acting tn cure the courts
delays and the violator's contumely |
and injustice.
What is the matter with THE |
ANTITRUST LAW?"
~ all right only it's penalty. What |
will we do with that? Make It FELL |
ONY WITH IMPRISONMENT ONLY |
(not In the discretion OF the COURT)
but for to years.
Mr.. Editor, l believe this will do
the work.
Yours truly,
M r. Chase