our splendid system of justice, buttressed by the Constitution and always safeguarded by Judges whose highest duty is its preservation.
But men cannot be punished for their ordinary human limitations. That the Harvester case fully determines. But, beyond this, nothing is better settled than that they cannot be punished where confiscatory interference with property is concerned, except when they have a clearly expressed method of judicial determination plainly provided for their protection. This has been so often expressed that but a short reference to the authorities is adequate. It is a right that cannot be lost by uncertainty or obscurity. Men cannot lose it by a statute that makes them guess at a possibility of its exercise, or where the opportunity consists only as a defense to any application or proceeding for their punishment. This is well covered in the very recent cases of Ohio, etc., Water Co. vs. Ben Avon Borough,[1] and Oklahoma vs. Love.[2] In the latter case the defendant was, by a State Commission, acting under a statute, prohibited from establishing rates higher than those prevailing in 1913, for laundry work in Oklahoma City. Proceedings were taken for the violation of the orders of the State Commission. It was provided that for disobedience of such orders there was to be a fine imposed, as for a contempt, of not exceeding five hundred dollars a day. Mr. Justice Brandeis, speaking for the whole court, says:[3] "So it appears that the only judicial review of an order fixing rates possible under
