The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1911-11-23

. The indicted Chicago packers IN
stead of having exhausted their re-
sources in opposition to criminal
prosecution and being ready to sub
init to trial yesterday on the facts and
the law, have apparently just begun
to fight. Ey an adroit move they
Seem at first blush to have separated
Tho law from the facts and are out
ON tho broad highway of legal inter-
probation.
Iicsurrectius their old contention
that the antitrust law is u%nconstitu-
tiural because they say i, does not de-
fine any crime clearly enough to in
form alleged v~iolators of what they
may OF may not do. leaving them to
guess whether Il jury will consider
their transactions reasonable or
''unrensonablc." they sought writs OF
haheas corpus. which raised the is
suc clearly on their contention. These
Writs We're uuisled in the owe court
which, without an appeal to the SUI
prcnle court, upset the contention OF
the packers.
Just :ls the trial court was ready
to- proceed with the hearing upon the
merits, the packers procured II post
poncmcnt 10y virtue of the primary
steps in the appeal. The point at is
sue is ono of the strongest features OF
tho Sherman antitrust law, II II
should hold water in the supreme
court. but one which has never been
adjudicatcd. The indictments arc
under what is termed he criminal
feature of the law. which provides
for individual liability on the part OF
corporation officers for the acts OF
the corporations, and makes the PEN
atty IL criminal one.
The law provides in substance that
any combination in unreasonable re-
strain, of trade shall be punished and
likewise the individual officials. AS
indicated before the point at issue is
whether the term unreasonable
with its antonym reasonable are SUI
~ticiently definite to define a crime so
that there can be no doubt on the
part of the accused whether he is
within or without II law. The
question arises partly from the pre-
c~isencss required in describing statu-
tory ~uffenscs. Under the common law
the act in it's broad sense was the
crime: under the statutory system the
crime must be specifically described.
So far as the use of words of f1ex-
ible meaning are concerned. they
have been employed in criminal prac-
tice for centuries. The rules of evil
dence in criminal cases require that
the trial jury shall believe the ac-
cused mar guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Thus We have the same word
in IL somewhat different relation as
That over which the packers are fight
ing. Again, the criminal law pro-
vides the severest penalty for the IL
who commits murder with malice
a~forethought. And that malice is a
from the circumstance surrounding
the commission Of the crime.
We had always entertained the be-
lief that it was a question of fact for
the jury whether or not there had
been All unreasonable restraint of
tradc-or whether or not Il trust cx-
listed. If this be true. there is little
ground for having the law declared
unconstitutional because it provided
that a jury should determine whether
or not a crime had been committed.
No one accused of the crime of MUIR
der can defend himself on the plea
that II" only intended to commit AN
assault and battery, and that the law
did no specify o far the assault
could be carried without becoming a
homicide. The criminal takes the
chance and if he gets owe the line he
must abide the consequences. If
these principles of criminal jurispru-
Acnce are put into effect, it hardly
seems the packers would have any
day I'M Jul on their appeal.