Communication

(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inaporaprate.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The Supreme Court in its recent decision on the Steal Corporation case has taken a remarkable position on the application of laws and has set an opochmaking precedent. This court, composed of the nine-most mature legal minds in the country, has reasoned substantially as follows: the purpose of law is the furtherance of the public welfare; when, therefore, a statue which usually accomplished this end fails to react to the benefit of the public in a particular case, the fundamental purpose of the law should be considered above its mere verbal provisions. In a word, the public weal supersedes all law.

Can anyone fall to recognize the connection between this decision and the puzzling conflict of public interest and constitutional law in our attempts to rid the United States of Bolshevists and Bolshevism? We are a law-loving people. We are attached to the legal doctrines laid down by the fathers of the Constitution. We will not give up our belief in the virtue of free speech, freedom of the press, and tolerance of all political ideas. But of late we have been forced to realize that in this special case these principles have reacted to the detriment of the public welfare which they were purposed to benefit. We were at a loss to reconcile our legal doctrines with our public interest. For the solution of this problem we have the Supreme Court to thank. W. B. LEACH, JR., '22.