Evening star., 1921-03-02
LEVER ACT ruling
| HA[TS MANY SUITS
Supreme Court Decision Has
Startling Effect on Prose-
cution of Profiteers.
by DAVID LAWRENCE.

Few decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States in this genera :
ton have had such a. startling effect
on the work of the prosecuting branch
of the government as the verdict de-
claring unconstitutional the Lever
act, under which profiteers were
brought to court during and since the
war.
Not onuly does Congress find itself
in more or less confusion about the
status of the Lever act itself, Whlch
alone of the wartime legislation had
been purposely left on the s.atu,e
books either as an anchor to wind
ward for the new Department OF Jus
tice in preventing future coal strikes
or as Il means of restraining the prof.
itecrs. but the Department of Justice
is wiped clean of pending lnVestiSa-
tionS and suits which had been begun
under the Lever act.
In u sense the decision of the Su-
preme Court is timely. for it gives At
torney General Daugherty and the
Harding administration a clean slate,
and throws out scores of pending
cases which would have been en-
barrassng to the republican admins
tratiOn.
The effect. moreover, upon business
conditions throughout the country is
admitted. for many concerns which
have been suffering from reverses and
d lack of profits also had hanging
over them prosecutions that bore a
relationship both to their prestige and
credit.
Mixed Feeling Over Decision.
Generally speaking. disappointment mt
and satisfaction were expressed IN the
National Capital. depending upon the
persons interviewed. Men like Sena-
tor Capper of Kansas, republican; n;
who has been fighting protiteers said
frankly that the decision was unfor-
tunate and would have bad effect
pyScholOgically. He hoped something
could be done TO correct the situation
by new legislation.
on the other hand. inquiry among
lawyers at the Department of Justice
disclosed the viewpoint that Congress
probably would be unable at any time
to draft d law which would come
within the limits prescribed by the
Supreme Court as constitutional. In
deed. some went so far as to suggest
that since the Supreme Court insisted
that the law must state definitely
what is fair standard of prices 50
as to be able to inform an accused
person of exactly what charges are
against him. it was certainly doubt
full what the Supreme Court may say
hereafter about the validity of the
Sherman antitrust law since that
statute was just as vague and indefi-
mite as the Lever law, and made no
more attempt to define what is rea-
sonable or unreasonable restraint of
trade, any more than it had been pos
Sible to say what a reasonable or un-
reasonable profit would be.
Certainly a tendency of the Supreme
Court to permit the laws of supply
and demand to operate without re-
straint OF law, is observed by many
persons inside and outside Of Con-
g'resS, who think the law-making
body should let business alone at ali
times. and that the consumer had
his own remedy when prices went too
high.
Senator Capper Voices disappointment
The other viewpoint, however, is
expressed by Senator Capper, who
said today:
Yes. L am disappointed. and 1 be-
lieve the people of the country will
be disappointed. l do not wish to
criticise the Supreme Court, but it is
unfortunate that technicality should
be permitted to thwart the purpose
of a law and give the people the
worst of it.
the morale of our people is still dis
turbed by the fact that lots of per-
sons made large profits out of the
war and will probably go scot free.
or course. there is not so much
profiteering nowadays as there was.
but there can be no doubt that the
presence of the Lever act on the
statute books acted as a restraining
influence. The psychology of the
present decision is bound to be dis
couraging, and 1 am going to con-
suit the lawyers in the Senate and
see whether we cannot draft a law
that will reach the profiteer."
Prosecution Under Sherman Law.