The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-12-24
THE QUESTION OF A COMMA.
TWO CONSTRUCTIONS OF AN ARTICLE
OF A CONSTITNTIOM

Arthur l.. seweirs Ex puision from the stock
Exchange Argued In Court, and n Ruie Of
Grammar Expounded In Connection with It.
Arthur l.. Sewell, q son-in-law OF Lester
walack. was the junior partner In the firm Of
John Bonner 4 Co. when. in December. 1877, 1t
suspended. owing to the Irregularities in the
senior partners system Of finance. The rchy-
pothecation OF securities was n not lnconspicu-
Gus part Of that system. according to tho testi-
mony given before the Governing Committee Of
the Exchange. In consequence Of which the
Subcommittee reported:
In the Committees opinion never before in the history
Of the Stock Exchange has the been erperAtcd such
Sers as dis detailed IN BRET AND whc Sn bonner
was the principal participant Its result has been to Al
deuce either IN men institutions, In Wall street The
carecs,icss shown by Arthur sewci in the position
re occuwrd hot as parner in The irm Y John Bonner
siqon a! ANT ,a snf impartial so1'dersoG ..
a, We ad hat john Bonner and 6s pafteT Arthur
4 sewe are guilty Of obvious fraud and amenaOe to
lion Of this New YORK Stock Exchange.
There was unanimous vote on Bonners
guilt and his expulsion. but only a majority
subscribed to the finding in Sewells case.
though there was a two-thrds vote In favor Of
his expulsion. Several Of the Committee gave
weight to the explicit declaration OF an officer OF
the Bankers and Brokers' Association that
Bonner had confessed 10 him. and had affirmed
in the most positive manner that Sewell knew
nothing Of his frauds. Mr.. Sewels expulsion
from the Exchange not only branded him as a
fraud-unlustly. as he claims-but took away
from him his membership. worth about SO 900 (:
his policy Of life insurance. worth $1,000: his
interest rs "A member in the large property Of
him o tbe n caTryn n hs u nsincss
Having from time 10 time since the 29th OF jan
uary last applied to be readmitted and TO have a
rehearing Of his case he has resorted to the
courts for relief An application by him for an
interlocutOry Injunction restraining the Presi-
dent aud other officers Of the Exchange from
Interfering with his entering the Exchange and
carrying on business there. was argued yester-
day before Judge Freedman. who took the pa
pers ami reserved his decision.
Into the action. the original question OF the
guilt or innocence OF Mr.. Seward does not enter
II is the regularity or legality OF the action OF
the Governing Committee and the officers Of the
Exchange thereupon which IL at issue. and
pract ally may be called question OF COM
ma. II all hinges on the reading OF Article M
Of the constitution Of the New York Stock Ex-
change. which is
should any member be guilty q obvious fraud Of which
upon conviction thereof hy vote on twothirds of Tho
members q the said committee present. be lied and
n no., to ,ne provisions q article XIV hs cSgsnia
who are creditors Of such persons
John L. Logan, Mr.; sSewell's lawyer discus
sing the case SAID. There is no dispute over
the question Of Mr.. sewell's Innocence Of the
was guilty OF fraud. but the Exchange simply
claims that II j. bound to stand BY its Governing
Committee. II is n question Of law only. We
claim that the plain meaning OF Article Xxx. is
that II requires Il vote Of two-thirds OF the Gov
erning Committee present TO convict member
oil Obvious fraud. and that no such vote was had
in Mr.. Sewell's case. There was simply ma
lority vote or, his conviction. The tw9-thirds
vote obtained was on his expulsion. In their
answer .the defendants admit every material
point claimed BY US except the legal one which
We make rs TO the construction OF that article.
From our point OF view no person conversant
with the English language can doubt that our
reading is the correct ono. But they have set
W another technical defence to deprive Us Of
our rights. In the provisions OF Article NH. OF
the constitution OF the New York Stock Ex-
change. which reads:
ANY member Of the New York Stock Exchange who
shall himself or whose partner partners shall anply
for ~ Injunction or legal Instrument resrainin any ON
or n. dnts anie he coh.,aiio and byIaws ~ an bs
that act cease to b. member Of the association
~" To that VT. reply that oil articles OF that
character have been declared by the courts 10 10
void, No parties car enter nto an agreement
d which the propose 10 take away from the
man ia. ieen iaiared the law Of the land m ust
ano-d hin redress; and i a monsrous that
such thing should be held as n sniod over
any llll-uce that might be perpetrat-d. for
it, Ylitdity be allowed"
Roocr seyell. who represents the Stock Ex-
chang >. said; TIL" motion for an interlocu-
tory Injunction was oppressed upon several
RrOun is irs;. that an intcrlacutory injunction
Is neye: granted by Court OF Equity unless
thee Is some threatened wrong 10 the plaintiff
or s)me Interference with the present condition
Of thin : and IL II necessary to retain the exist
ing cor .itons until the trial oi the action. We
hold that Mr. Sewell suffered the expulsion
nearly year ago and has IA; stiR for eleven
months unLfr II. ani There Is no aci threatened
now ana nothing about To- be done now by tie
Exchange which brings him within those cases
where such an Injunction should be granted.
The case can be tried on It's merits in Jan
uary. and there Is no pressing reason why
Il should not stand until then. 40 II has
for eleven months Then either purity can
appeal 10 the Court OF Appeals; but from an
order for an interiocutory injunction there is
no appeal. and therefore we decline To submit
our rights at this time. Second. we claim that
the, plaintiff voluntarily signed the constitution
and bylaws that they thereby became an agree
ment between him and the other members OF
The association known as the New YORK stock
Exchange and that by that agreement he has
bound himself 10 submit every cause OF dis
agreement between himself and his fellow mem
hers-either OF u monetary character or inVolv-
ing his fair fame ~ dealer his social standing
or anything else-to the Governing COMMITTEES
BE- hnal. II is declared in the constitution
that member found guilty OF obvious
two-thirds voted 10 expe him. We contend
mat to prcpSr understanding OF the meaning
OF Article M. the words upon conviction
thereof" are entirely superfuOus and upon
well-grounded. rules Of grammatical construc-
SO that u might read. "shall. by vote OF two.
present be expelled" Nowhere else In the
constitution is 1t required that there shall be 4
two-thirds vote Of the Governing Committee
except in this one case OF the expulsion OF q
member. Third-We contend that having sub
mttcd his case TO the arbitration OF the Com
mttee, he is bound by the finding OF that court
aud that Judgment cannot be attacked except on
the ground OF fraud Now. there is no whisper
OF fraud in this case. no claim that the Govern
iL9 Commlttee were actuAttd by passion OF
prejudice. We hold that he has no right 10 APP
peal from that decision to the courts. Indeed
II is especially provided In the constitution that
10 be a member. Fourth 1t II also contended
that the remedy sought by Mr. Sewell should
suspended member anyway. H. failed in Jan.
uary last. and has not settled with his creditors
He can only be readmitted by showing that he
has effected settlement with all his creditors
and then being balloted for US prescribed by the