, 1873-06-12

First.-For ofonscs having no immediate relation to
nenbers corpos3ts E,!s duty but ef 30 Infamous M.
men.
steond-For IN otrenno against rnombors duty ~
7A;rd-For orenncs compounded Of tho tno.
u anosa % i so
body, and does not tlepond on specific grant. But
In tho caso before US, the power Of e1pulaon docs not
rcst merely on thcao general principals. Tho sixth
Tint Said corporation shall have the right to admit
or e1pc such pcrsona ~ hey may SEQ a. In manner to
- prescribed by tho rules, regulations and by-awR
that they to leaye tho causes Of
tho limitation that tho proceeding shau follow the
rules, regulations, or by-lays. Notwithstanding tho
a. ss L 5 IT,
30 only for somo jst aid reasonable esnso
Law would ho valid which should seek to dsfranchiso
members unless they would attend particular church
Void 10 20 utterly eoo from iaU s oecs foe
roo tho Legislature Intended 10 cothe II viii right
OF controlling It's members In thcae matters.
The question ill., then, does tho bylaw under which
she reator e1peed fall within tho category unt
md reasonable regulationH7 That bylaw ii as fol-
Sin case any membor Of tho Association, having
made any business contract, cither written or varbal
contract hs shall, upon tho representations Of IN ag-
g5Ioye member 70 tho Board Of Directors, accompa-
suspended from ull privileges Of o1nbership In tho
Association until much consact u oquitahy satisfac-
torl arranged or settled when he may be restored to
membership and 1t Rhall bo the duty Of the Board Of
Directors 70 be caused to be publicly announced tho
SUSPENSION or restoration Of any rnonber under this
bylaw Is unjust and unreasonable, aud boyorl tho
power Of the corporation to enact.
Ono Of the obtccta for which tho Board Of Trado
Wss created undoubtedly was to promote high etanu.
ard Of commercial honor and commercial credit In tho
CITY Of Chicago BY securing among the monbers Of the
8oard prompt discharge Of their pocuniary obga-
lions, without resort to tho cxpousiye aud datory
procedure Of court Of law. III order to accomplish
this the charter authorizes tho board to create within
Itself trb1uas Of roferunca aud arbitration by whose
decision the cbora Bl!a be bound, but 1t docs not
ronne tho board to tho uao Of thcso for tho At
r apo h.t se
"a adopted this bylaw. providing that II mcnber
tail. to comply With b.snsSs contract malo win
meut of disputes -. which sro properly
tratlon. It appliea to cases Of Noncompliance with
contracta about which there Ia dispute necessary to
be- referred TO ono Of these committees and there wae
that this rule was not gcrmane to tie purposes for
which tho corporation waa croated. II our judy
well adapted to secure The object we have above
, na;asd' and preserve i:h the high character md
Of ha II e. T %a5S purely
to 10 respected or, respectable ii II tolerated
among its 1neuberH violation Of IN undsputcd con-
haps tito rule wonld have boon better Il Il had sowed
more discretion to the Board Of Directors, to 10
essised IN casea OF misfortune and not Of fault. But
.natter wholly for tho decision Of the Corporation
ttsef. That tho rule, in Its present form, is
u there had bcen express ground In the charter
@ oi power Of expulsion, wo should DO inclined to
holn nat promp. by the members Of
- his thst monGsr falling in III da1pGaa9a 4sss9a
a ho 81 aat atu
PASS bylaw making such breach OF duty ground
fot daffnnchise,nens tho act would have to be sus-
sulca OF the common law.
Tho remarks Of counsel a. TO the alleged hardship Of
case 1t Is apparent that whom tho reator mao Ills
ps':o Of should rlae. Thore wao no misfortune
turn from what he had anticipated. lie knew what
tho rules OF tho board wore. BY becoming member,
ton, and BY Implication agreed to be bound by tho
30 tas a. .aoy %ere 10 tne power to make. 10 knew
FORM 1t only by acclent aud what tho penalty Of
1on.performance. Thcre Is, therefore, no spocial
being much In point to which Il IL proper to refer.
The rst Is that Of Rex Y. The Mayor Of Liverpool,
ssna Ssg & '5 G d ee8a s1Rs spn 3
THO return Of tho Mayor showed as cause for tho e1-
Court aed tho Ss caase | nsueient. Ths de9enos IN
principle between that caae aud the ono at bar is
solsson 1hs ssest ey 4 3er gSs ws sov
hardly point q resemblance botwecn tic two,
etiss. him In reference to tue othor wo shan not
ground for disfranchsing mombor of tic Municipal
Common Council, however gtayo We may deem It na q