the Collins case,[1] and the Pennsylvania Railroad case,[2] than the decisions already delivered in cases of monopolistic nature. Let us, therefore, now examine some of the principles therein enunciated, always remembering the rules of presumption and burden of proof therein involved. It will be found that, even if standing alone, they demonstrate that a criminal statute such as the Lever Act cannot possibly be constitutionally enforced, because of the natural impossibility of proving that which is absolutely requisite.
Mr. Justice McKenna, in the case of United States vs. United States Steel Corporation, which was decided by the Supreme Court on March 1, 1920, says:[3] "* * * in a case of this importance, we should have something surer for judgment than speculation, something more than a deduction equivocal of itself, even though the
- ↑ Note: In Collins vs. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 1914, under a statute of Kentucky a pool or combine of the crops of tobacco and other farm products was permitted to the growers for the purpose of obtaining a better or higher price than by separate sale. It was made unlawful and punishable by a fine for any person who had made a "pooling agreement" to make separate sale of his crop. Collins, after entering into such an agreement, sold his tobacco crop by independent sale, and his indictment followed. He contended that the statute was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in that it deprived him of liberty and property. The Court decided that the statute was unconstitutional, and fundamentally defective by reason of its uncertainty. It made it necessary for Collins to determine his conduct not according to known standards, but by speculating upon imaginary conditions in determining the value of his tobacco crop.
- ↑ United States vs. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Collins vs. Kentucky, 242 U. S. 208. 1916.
- ↑ United States vs. U. S. Steel Corporation, 251 U.S. 417 (see pages 448 and 449). March 1, 1920.
'real value' any article, or to enhance the cost of any article above its 'real value.'" The Harvester Company contended that the law offered no standard of conduct that it was possible to know in advance and to obey. The Court held that the statutes were invalid upon the principle that to compel a guess what the fair market value of commodities manufactured or sold would be under other than existing conditions is beyond constitutional limits.
