CHAPTER X
The Knight Case
Whatever the crimes perpetrated in the name of "liberty," they are not a circumstance to those sought to be justified by the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller in United States vs. Knight.[1]
And yet, that was perhaps the most ably argued of all the trust cases, and resulted in two of the most learned opinions—those of the Chief Justice and of Mr. Justice Harlan—to be found in the reports. Indeed, in the one or the other of those opinions can be found the foundation of most of the doctrines that have been enunciated since.
And, what is striking, is that, so far as the law was concerned, the difference of opinion was negligible.
The difficulty was not that the Chief Justice did not know the law of the case, but that he knew so much more than some of his readers—certainly this one—that he assumed understanding where instruction might be needed.
The Supreme Court says in Arkansas vs. Bank:[2] "Whether the Supreme Court was warranted in assuming the facts, as it sets them forth, is no concern of ours. The important thing is that it was at pains to state them, and that it can have had no purpose in doing so other than to establish a liability. * * * If the statute imposed liability without, etc., * * * there was no need to go into these details."
- ↑ 156 U. S. 1 (1894).
- ↑ 207 U. S. 276 (1907).
61
