, 1873-03-17
How tho Individual Membor5 Of the
Firm Camo to DO Expelled.
all Tho Narclousenon Of The City Alleged
to Have Been Parties to tho
GIixel-Nralev Frauds.

Petitioner nilir1na that ilo hhB bocn q meFnboE |
Of tho Board of Trade OF this city from 1860 or |
1861 down to 1879, having in that porioa onrned |
the estoem and respect Of Lila follow-1nombors, |
by roasou Of honest aud fair dealing. On the |
1Bt of Noyonbor 1871, he formed copartnorship |
with John y. Lyon and T. .. Rico, under tho |
stylo of J. D. Lyon Il Co., for tho purpose OF soll-
ing grain and other commodities, both on own
account and commission. On the 18th August,
1879, hig firm made tho following contract with
Culbertson, Blair d Co., also mombers OF tho
Board Of Trado, the parties signing duplicate |
copieo:
Cl1oAdo August IA, 1872-Te hare this day sold ].
B. Lyon CO. ton thousand b,tahc1s Of No. spring
cents per buno1 to be- delivered 1t nel1era option dur
ipg August 1874 TlIs contract ia subject IN all re:
srccs to tho rules aud regulations OF the Boafu oi
~'"Ao UuLngnTsoA, BLA1n l. Co.
In accordance with tho rules Of the Board at
Trado, J. B. Lyon 4 Co. put up $1,000 margins
On thia contract, in tho usual shape Of deposit
with tho Treasurer, Tho following is given as
tho grades of spring wheat established BY tno
bill), and adopted BY tho State Inspector md his
assistants, in tho Chicago maraots:
No. sprus eat sla o plump and vol cleaned
M wsssgs g e sne a q
Fly sa 5 No. rsFhns sssa sse pet
o.ler cause, unit for No. $, shall 10 graded as reject
ell.
Prior to Aug. 1, 1872, J. B. Lyon t. Co. had
purchased largely, and shipped to Eastern mar
kota and Carnda, the shipments between lat
Juno and lBt August being about 500. 900 bnshels;
and during tho Lust Of Jniy and 9ist august
100000 bushels; and besides these large
amounts, "nctuaty received, paid for. and
shipped, the firm Ind large contracts out for q
Of sho sOllor any time during August. Theso,
and 1nrgo transactions on the part Of other
Drms, had takon out Of the market nearly all
tho No. spring wheat, aud tho contracts
ro for tie hs eySsy sps e af e e a s"d ncdsne spfae
spring crop of 1872 all theao causes resulting in
an advance In price prior to tho 21st August aforo-
said Of from 90 to 10 cents per bushel; as Hel1,
frauds in tho inspection Of tho now crop Of
apring wheat Of 1872, by which, substantially, all
tho Inferior grain Tint arrived in tho city be-
twoon the Let and 21st August .wna frauaulont1y
inspected, md warehouse receipts given taore-
for as for No. 2 spring wheat, tho whole OF tho
inforior ao-called No. spring wheat 50 fraudu-
lent1y inspected becoming mixed in all tho ware
louaeB III the city With the No: 2 spring
wheat properly inspected tho rocelptg for aHb ID
and unavoidably taken up by tho warehouaomon
when presented by shippers. by tho delivery OF
aail. The proportion OF tho incoming crop Of
spring wheat arrived in Chicago before the 21st
OF August, it is stated, would, BY honest inspec-
ton, have been about one.llnf No. 2, and ono
scr1bos his firm to have made tho .nstonishing
discovery" TINT, out Of the 1000, 600 bushels
already stated to hive been shipped By them,
about 400, 900 bushels woro inforior unfit to pass
cents lcss por bushol. About 200, 600 bushels
were shipped to D. Buffers h Co.. Of Montreal,
who telegraphcd on the 19th Of August: Wheat
received yery poor We eas sdd trouble y g our
aud unfit for shipment"
Petitioner noxt shows that tho wheat being
thus fraadu1ent1y inspected and legally mixed,
after inspection and about one-llnlf of it boing
nctunlly No. 8 and rejected, but fraslduontly
gradod as No. 2, aa he IL informed aud believes,
Ihero was no why by which lis firm Or tho sellers
Of tho wheat could discover whether .particular
receipt represented good wheat or bad and.
to be delivered Oh 1T, and It would be impossible,
after the warehouse receipt Blonld bo received
and paid for, to enforce any recourse for dam
ages upon tho aellor He rofers, In confirmation
The report Of tho, Secretary Of the
Board Of Iratlo, made OIL the 1at Janll"
ary last, all Of which is matter of history.
Tic woll-known panio in tho market and de-
9S e. Of cpS psSi" Oh ayng noose @ for 81 Ss5
further margns, to which tho latter failed to re-
spontl, for tic following, a,nong other reasons
That, bccauge Of said fraudulent iuspeotion, tho
warehouse receipts nny No; spring wheat, IN.
mixod with No. 3 md rejected; aud, for tht
further reason. that margins put up under tht
rulo with tho Treasurer Of tho Board Of Trade,
and that, therefore, the putting up Of such mar.
gins would tic up tho capital Of sai1 firm, with
out assuring to it The wheat contracted for.
Petitioners did not ropudlate their contract
pay for said whoat whenever delivered according
10 contract; md charges The fact to bo thai
G., 3. .; Co. mover delivered, or offered to Do
liyor, wheat of the grade or in the quantity
called for i9 the contract, or apy other Grade q
respond c., 3. g. Co. Bont them a bill charging
them 81 ,GOb, tho difference between tho thel
market price, which thoy alleged to 10 51.l79
I'D the e eontract price and tls ~, npt being pnin
Lyon l. Co. aHBcnting under protest tlat It wa
illegal, and petitioner now claims that hi
firm sas entitlol to tho full aun, With intoroat
:on,menced q suit in tho courts Of tho State o
New York, by attachment against the firm, TO
lho recovery of "a 800, loas tho 81, 500 margin
withdrawn, by which, ho contends. that trr
the Board Of Trude, rs the Forum having juri'
dictiou. Ou tllo 2Gth OF August, G. 3. g. Co., b
iottor applied to the Board Of Directors to Klls
pond ]. d. Lyon d Co., for the reasons allege!
be- present for herring before the Board Of D
rcctora nt $50 O'Clock p. n. TINT day, No chare
was mado against tho individual motnherA OF u
firm, and no notice Of any Charge, or any oth!
!riuI, received by them. At the trial, n
Blair ntutes that tho tlrm Aaa not not tenders ,;
Sec i, OF Rulo D. Petitioner did not answ
the charge, nor make any dofenae, insisting th
no charge was made aCailat him as an indlyidt,
lnenlbor OF tho Bourd and ho cllargos tnat 7!
tirm Of ]. d. Lyon Il Co. is NOT and never was
member Of tho Board and tlnt nll IT, rightts; H.
uinglo culuety, and that tho trial was illogal b
ca,,ss 1t was brought against J. .. Lyon Il
il4stead Of tho individual members thereof. ]
therefore usiBta that the board, in lronouncl'
expulsion, nj they did l,ofore Heparating. act
illegally, and 10 rolles principally on tho folio
ing lungaago IN tho rI!les; -.
I, shall bs tle duty Of The Board Of Directors to
niae e,e mao . " = psmnSr 9a,DS tSat Of
1arty so cLasyod has tuilo1. etc.. Ao slsall bo 81
lendcd, cto.
JEe claims also TINT after boing indlvidua
Il 1.n,, 1,o5 m