to new growths. The astounding rapidity of the progress of modern industrial and commercial machinery has left many a good, just and able judge perplexed and bewildered, with his flag nailed to the mast. Can we expect more from the judges than we do from the equally bewildered economist or legislator?
Particularly have questions relating to the control of great monopolies proved too complex for the courts. However good a court may be, it is a court and not an administrative body. The discontent with the rulings of the commerce court demonstrates the truth of this statement. The attempt by the supreme court to establish some kind of administrative machinery to carry out its rulings in the tobacco case is another case in point. Such matters are not within the province of the court and they have no machinery to handle economic cases of any complexity or magnitude. A recent editorial in the Saturday Evening Post, commenting upon the commerce court, makes the following pertinent statement:—
"Suppose you were building a dam and had employed a competent civil engineer; but your lawyer insisted that all the engineer's orders must be subject to review by him. In the course of some years, if the engineer were sufficiently patient in explaining the import of his various orders the lawyer would understand all the problems involved in the construction of the dam; in short, he would become nearly as expert as the engineer himself.
"However, while the lawyer was acquiring this expert knowledge you wouldn't be apt to make much progress with the dam.
