Arizona republican., 1921-03-01

The opinion was based largely on the indefiniteness of the sections under re- view. Chief Justice White, departing from his prepared opinion, remarked that the scope of the sections appar- ently was "as broad as human imagi- nation" and that the degree of crim- inality was left to ever changing stan dards."
 Associate Justices Brandeis and Pit ney dissented as to the reasoning by which the courts decision was reached but concurred in the result.
 The chief justice said in his written opinion that the sections under dis cussion did mot constitute a fixing by congress of an ascertainabie standard of guilt and were not adequate to in- form persons accused of violations thereof of the nature and cause of the accusation against them" The alti- tude of possible interpretation was clearly evidenced, he said, by the vari- ous cases brought before the court These cases, numbering 10, ranged from specific convictions to denial oi linjunctions sought by the retailers tc restrain government agents from pro eeeding against them. In some cases the government appealed from adverse decisions of lower courts, quashing in l dictments, and in others 1t defended decisions in it's favor
 Observe that the sections forbid nc specific or definite act he said. 'tTe attempt to enforce these sections would be the equivalent of an effori to carry out a statute which in terms merely penalized or punished all acts detrimental to public interests wher | injurious or unreasonable in the esti- nation of a court and jury.
 "we are of the opinion that the courr below was clearly right in ruling tha1 the mere existence of a state of wal could not suspend or change the oper- ation of the guarantees and limitation: Of the fifth and sixth amendments" These sections Of the constitution declare that in all criminal prosecu- tions the accused shall have the righ to be informed of the nature and caus, of the accusation'' and that the charge must be specifically set forth in the indictment returned.
 i Section four of the Lever act made i unlawful ito limit facilities for trans porting, producing, harvesting, manu' i featuring. storing or dealing Tn any 1 necessities. to restrict distribution O any necessities. to prevent, limit ol lessen production of any necessities, t' enhance the price thereof, or 10 exac excessive prices for any necessities The court took as the test case tha of the l.. Cohen Grocery company O St Louis. which had been indicted To
 violation of the act, because or th
 sale of 90 pounds of sugar for slo-o, for at more than 20 cents a pound Decision of lower court sustaining
 demurrer to the indictments on tn
 ground that the section violated th fifth commandment was affirmed.
 Justice White then took up the othe nine cases. giving the effect of today decision, They are:
 R. F. Remington and others, ner chants of Jackson, Miss, versus Attor lney General Palmer appealing iron refusal of lower courts to issue an Tn function against Attorney Genera
 Palmer. Decree of lower courts re
 versed
 A. T. Lewis and company and other merchants of Denver. appearin'
 as defendants in the appeal orougn
 by the government from an injunction
 restraining the attorney general iron
 prosecuting them. Lower courts sus
 tained and injunction made permanent
 The Detroit Creamery company Ben Swartz and Jacob M. Smith. sepa
 rate cases, defending decrees of lowe
 (Continued on Page Two)