Page:Earle, Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty, 1920, 068.jpg

68 the laws of the State was that arising in proceedings to punish for contempt. * * * By boldly violating an order a party against whom it was directed may provoke a complaint; and if the complaint results in a citation to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, he may justify before the Commission by showing that the order violated was invalid, or unjust or unreasonable. If he fails to satisfy the Commission that it erred in this respect, a judicial review is open to him by way of appeal on the whole record to the Supreme Court. ''But the penalties, which may possibly be imposed, if he pursues this course without success, are such as might well deter even the boldest and most confident. The penalty for refusal to obey an order may be five hundred dollars.'' * * *  Obviously a judicial review beset by such deterrents does not satisfy the constitutional requirements, even if otherwise adequate, and therefore the provisions of the Acts relating to the enforcement of the rates by penalties are unconstitutional, without regard to the question of the insufficiency of those rates."

Of course, under the Lever Act, a man with a large business might, for errors of judgment resulting from being forced to decide matters that the law has always insisted he cannot be expected to decide properly, suffer endless imprisonment and fines impossible of payment.

In the Ohio case, Mr. again says: "We are unable to say that  offered