Page:Earle, Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty, 1920, 146.jpg

146 prices of * * *  necessaries."  The opinion thus refers to this subject:  "His failure to do so, perhaps, because of its recognized futility, does not render the indictment invalid."  If the President could not determine prices of necessaries safely and effectively, as was shown in the case of sugar, then far less should it fairly be required of his fellow citizen to make such decision under peril of indictment.  This phase of the matter is, however, not now under consideration, but a more serious one.  A citizen, having used his best judgment as to prices which he fixed, and having reached a conclusion conscientiously and without any complaint or threat from the Government, has, in turn, no right to complain.  He has no right to redress where no wrong is threatened.  But he has a constitutional right, where his property or its fruits are to be taken from him, freely to submit his contentions to a court of justice and have the matter judicially determined, both for his redress and guidance. That right has been for centuries the chief aim of civilization. An Act that discourages such procedure is both against civilization and the Constitution. Even a sovereign state cannot check the right that now "freely exists" to have proper Constitutional questions involving rights of citizens determined by the Supreme Court, as was decided in the Harrison Case and in the Wadley Case.

It, of course, follows under the latter case and those cases which are approved and relied upon therein, that defendants, before they can be either fined or imprisoned, are entitled to their day in Court, and the determination by some judicial tribunal of what is a fair