, 1873-06-13
Whnt- The. Hon, Leonard .Swott Thinks
oc,tho sPage.B0arl of Trade
~.~--.- DCCisiOns --e ~~--
The supromo Court Not Asked to
- Pass On the Issues Raised y j
III the Brine-Lin-
coin Gases.
whilst tho Powers Of the Corpo-
ration Arc Not Denied, Those
Of the Directors Arc.


tho BOARD as decisive in their favor Of tho casos
~ Rrino y. Board Of Trado, aud Lincoln Y.
Same, was printod In full, In order that tho COM
rncruiAl public might know exactly the grounds
upon which those gontlomon Wow their triumph
OIL assured beforehand. We now print the othor
sido.
A TnrnuNE reporter yesterday waited on hon.
1,oonard svots, who appears for Brine md
Lincoln. ID nskod him what he had to say, be-
yona what ho had already boon reported to have
naid by tie daily pnpera Of tho city, as to tho
croot a, tho Page decision on tho tNo last named
oaaoa. ....
nIr, svctt safd that, whilst tho Supreme Court
decided that the Board Of Trade had right,
uudor certain circuulstancos, to eject memnoE
for failure to fulfill contract, It simply passed
upou such evidonce as WAS brought before 1t IN
tho record. In tho Page case, the evidence
showed that Page had admitted his indebted
nees to Stnyors end Brown, and Aa inabilityto
nav. In tho Brine and Lincoln cases, tho lssues
wore Of m entirely different character. With
regard to the rights Of the corporation, or
Directors, to adjudicato on such . oase,
nothing was said by the rolator; but
the Court itself pointed out tho difference
betveeu tic gtato Of factR Oh which iss decision
was based and in casos involving ,judicsal quos-
tionp lilso those Of Brine and Lincoln. On pago
III the Court say, referring to the trial Of Page
before tho Directors: Pago appeared and ad-
mittod tho indebtedness" and on page 1io, "tho
rolator distinctly admitted the indabtedneas."
This would hayo Disposed of a1 the Judicial ones.
had they made any such admissions, but they dld
mol: Tho only inquiry LETT was, whether tho
facts admitted constituted an ofronae punishable
by expulsion or not and no ono doubts & Or con, ,
not o right to pass upon it as such md to expel
Roporter-Ae understand, you claim that tho
difference between tho Page and tho Brine Lin
ness, whilst thoro is Il dispute aa to such in
dsbtedncss in tho Brine-Lincoln casos Which .
court OF competont Jurisdiction can alone decide;
in other words, that tho Board may nct in a case
where member admits al tho chargea, but
whoro member contests tho chsrgca: tho juris-
diction Of the Board ends and that Of the courts
Mr. svett replied BY referring to tho rule pre-
scribing tue suspension Of member, the ecopo
and meaning Of which waB limited BY tho Court,
on page 115, III tho following words !: It up
plies to cases Of Noncompliance with contracts
about which there is no dispute" Again, aa to
the question Of tho unreaaouableneRs md un-
justnoss OF tho bylaw, In which tho Court held It
caso, tho counsel simply contonded that the BY.
law was dehors tho powers Of tho
corporation, because 1t maae poverty, q
cause Of diBfranchisomont,, and Tor that
that tho bylaw Was t.nla,gful because the co,.po
ration could not delegate to tho Directors itf
powors to disfranchieo no such proposition wa
hlntod at anywhere In the sgrcement. It va! va!
find reasonB, or any other question than tha
eubmitted namely, Was the bylaw unjust ant
uurcaaonnblo7 Tho other aspoct Of the qucs
tion, namely the ,.nlasefulness Of tho corpora
ton delegating to tile Directors fts power to dis
frauoliso, was an entirely different mattcr
upon which the Court WIS not caller
on to express m opinion. Ho referred
to his brioi, in which tlis matter ~ treated OF
mon sonse and the laws OF legnl construction
ure worry plain that l. Whatever may be til
Language of tho Judges, tho decision, III q prccc
dent, in a strict senae, binding in future casoa
the case, Us appearing In the record. 2. It
not binding na to any mnttor to which tho min
Of the Court did not advert, even though with
tho record faets." Bishops First Book Of Law
Soc. 303. Here follow casos.]
Our Supreme Court las i also expressly decided TIL
question. In tho City Of Chicago y Major 18 1nino
$40, account raa brought for injuries to tho d.
s e. as.sso1 s ea eh tut pssoa
the henent Of his widow and next ct ku, to whom th
damages should be- distributed In the dcclataonwh!c
deceased loft widow Or ncxs Of kin. Thers was ro
diet and Judgment In favor Of tho plaintiff Upon 81
peal ills 1nQR1lont Rnh ATlEN1eu. IQG GuuEtt III Il
opinion, quotes in full the language Of the statut
and holds Tint the action could DO maintained whe,
tho deceased left widow, hut did leave next Of XII
and establishes tile ru0 OF damages. No dofect
tho declaration pointed out Or discussed. In Gil
cago Il. l. II. n. y. Morris, 90 Illinois, 4oo act
waa brought by an adm!niGrrator upon tho san
stutute, mud Judgment rendered IN fayor Of the p!ai
tiff. lilo defonanf uron appeal raised The ohjectit
that tho declaration did not that tho deceased
widow or next Of kin. In answer to Ills objoctio
the r1aintilf citod Majors casc. 1ut the Court
yeraed the caso upon this point, and, 1n reforenco
Majors case, 1t ssys: In answer to this objection,
is urged by np,elcos cousel that thcro were no Bu
ayorrents In the declaration In hIajors case, and t
Judgment was rendered upon that record. TAe rep
to this s, this objection not .Hads in that edss
any TINE, nor tAs atttntion Qf tie Court called TO
point. Tho case waB decided On wholly difero
grounds"
Mr.. r.Ssott considers It very plain that the Pal
decision doaa not settle whotlor the poworB
disfraachisomont can be delegated, or wheth
tho Board Of Trade can eseroiRe powers viii.
nre judicial in regard to contracts aud he fec
Rs assured aB he ever WAS that he will prove th
to bo tho case, and TINT the Court will take
Dntirely different Wow upon tho different sta
oi facts Which ho has to lay before them.
CROP PROSPECTS IN NEBRASKA. !