The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-29
TIE STOCK EXCHANGE CONTROVERSY.
The Jurisdiction of the Exchange in
Arbitration.
Important DeeisiOn-Judge Cardozo's In
junction against the Stock Exchange
Sustained by Judge Barnard.

In the case Of AexanderT. Compton Vs. william
II Nelson ana others the New York Stock TX
change Judge Barnard has rendered the following
deDision:--
This is motion the part OF the plaintiff to
continue an Injunction, granted BY Judge Cardozo,
against the defendants the New York stock Ex-
change. II appears that the plaintlfr Lad partner
John j. Pardee; that the plaintin was nOt member
oil the Stock Exchange but his partner Pardee, Was
member; tbat these two partners the palntln ana
fardee, under The firm OF John j. Pardee 4 Co.. mad
some transactions IN gold with one Randall IL.
Foote, aud that Foote is member or the Stock Tx.
change A suit has arisen out OF these transactions
In gold, which Is now pending In this court, and all
the issues IN which have been referred IN said action
IN TINS court To a referee, to hear and determine
the same. Meantime the Stock Exchange haa
assumed jurisdiction over the controversy regarding
these gold TRANSACTIONS and asserts the right TO de-
termine the same by compu sory arbitration. II Is
not TO be forgotten that the transactions were with
the plaintiff and Pardee as equal partners and that
tile plantiIf Is not ana never was member OF the
Stock Exchange and 1t Is Idle TO pretend all tine
interest OF one OF these two equal partners these
gold TRANSACTIONS can he finally determined and set
tied by a compulsory arbitration without jeopardy
ing and materially affecting the interests OF the
other partner (the plaintiiD IN the same. On this
ground-and IL seems to me solid ano substantial
one In law and eQuity-the piaintii has sought the
interpOsltion or this court to protect hun by mjunc
ton, against the intermeudling with his rights OF
sell-c0nstituted tribunal possessing rightful
jurisdiction over him or his property. do not
see on what principle the continued protection
Of this court can be denied To the plaintiff As
liz well cOntended by his counsel. we have no more
authority TO turn him over to the Stock Exchange
as the place where ne must seek his redress than
have to Danish MIN from the soil or the State. His
property cannot be reached, against his WILL but by
due process OF law and through the regularly cODst
tuted Judicial tribunals The stock Exchange Is a
voluntary association OF individuals, unknown TO the
law as court OF adjudcature, and without discuss
ing the rights or powers which 1t may or may not
have acquired rs between Its members py their
agreement or CONSENT IL can receive no cOunSenance
from this court In any attempts to stretch Its author
y either directly or indirectly through the medium
have never been voluntarily submitted to It's control.
Still less can sanction any effort, however Indl.
rect to GUST this court Of lts lawful jurisdiction The
ancient landmarks OF the judicial tribunals only
be removed through the regular form OF consiJu-
tOnal amendment. The injunction must be con-
tnued, with $40 costs to the plaintln.
Strahan a Root for the piaiDCiiY and II support
II the iEUDc.icn; ]. X Hll and John +. Buct Gil Tor
he Stock Exchange AID against the Injunction