The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-03-19

ton.
| have venturcd these comments, as
representing my views OH this particu
/ lar feature of accumulated difficulties
that confront the farmer, understanding
at the same time that the enactment OF
laws, even though they should be Wig
| orously applied by any one State against
gambling in futures at the expense OF
agricultural products would be poorly
commensurate for its prevention, unless
reinforced by coincidcnt legislation OF
the part of the other States. But then
! let il be remembered that agitation il
! indispensable to the achievement of amy
and every reform. No measure fol
general relief was ever yet successfully
inaugurated and prosecuted without the
sanction of authoritative beginning
! Upon this its claims to dignity and def
mite character are chiefly and perhaps
exclusively dependent. In every con
additionally regulated community the
| people speak and act through their Off
cially delegated representatives. Let
this be done in the interests ! am now
discussing, and it is reasonably possible
that protective procedures of decisive
nature instituted by any one State, may
awaken the spirit of their development
elsewhere and receive support from cor
responding action oh the part of other
States. The laws of actual supply and de
mand are the only natural and equitable
standards for measuring values. and
they in every instance should be shield.
cd against the encroachmcnt Of gam.
blcrs.
/ have referred TO the restrictive act
Of the Twentieth legislature. That was
an act full of good intentions, yet it is
wocfully imperative, and has been pro
life if no apprecable good TO the farm.
cr 1t is positive in its terms and eX-
ccllcnt in its propositions, but has been
we believe, cOntemptuOusly disobeyed
because il is without the power of com.
pelling application. This condition of
affairs certifies the humiliation of the
farmer in ,his complaint at the denial
of the help that is due him, and makes
the law the jeer and jest of the gambler
whose swindlcs il sought to prevent.
This act declares dealing in futures TO
be n misdomeanor, punishable by n fine
of not less than 500 nor more than
5000, and Imprisonment in Jail not less
than 30 days nor more than six months.
That 1t has been productive of 10 good
results whatever, is to n large extent
because those entrusted with the exc
cution Of the laws through the medium
Of the courts do not perform their duty.
These officials are either incompetent or
unwilling to obey statutory requirements
and in either event are themselves amen
able and should be brought to answer
before the tribunal of the law that COM
missioncd them. While | am of the
opinion that every gambler is away from
home while out of the penitentiary, and
think this OffcnSe should be made n fell
Ony instead of n misdemcanor, | never
theless also think that the act of the
Twentieth legislature might eventually
give some relief if amended as to require
district judges to give the matter II spe-
cial charge to the grand jurics; and to
require county and district attorneys to
arraign and prosecute all such cases,
under penalty of removal from Office
and forfeiture of their bonds to the
State for the amounts thereof; and to
make it the duty of the attorney general
of the State, upon sworn complaint pre-
scented to him, to promptly institute and
press proceedings for the said removal
and forfeiture. There is no excuse for
such dcrelction on the part of prose-
cutting attorneys. | am pleased, how
ever, to be able to state that the preva-
lent disregard and neglect of their du-
ties in this particular by prosecuting of
ficers is not without its pleasing eXcep-
tons, for some of them, in this matter
of dealing in futures, have made manly
efforts in behalf of the supremacy of
the law.
Since writing the above, my attention
has been called to n recent decision on
this subject, rendered by the supreme
court of Missouri, which has so much
pertincncc and pith that | insert it here
with.
The law passed by the Legislature in
1887, defining and dealing in options on
grain rs gambling. was sustained in the
celebrated ease of Conner Bros. Il Co.
of this city VS.. George Black of Clark
county, Mo-. in decision handed down
Tuesday by Justice CAN'T of the supreme
court The case is one which attracted
wide attention, and it has been twice in
the supreme court, once having been re-
mandcd for trial.
July II. 1890, Conner Bros. 4 Co. sold
for the account of Black, as his brokers,
on the floor of the merchants exchenge,
100000 bushels of No. mixed oats mt
sellers option for the month of Septem-
Der, 1870. Black put up in Corners
hands mt different times as margins $4,000
in cash. From July 81 the market rose
so rs to absorb all the margins, and Con-
ner notified Black and demanded fur
Their money for margins, and directed
Conner Bros. to close out the transac-
ton by buying 100000 bushels of oats in
the St. Louis market to fill the contract
There was Il loss accruing to Conner
Bros. in the transaction, they having as
brokers sold the property in their own
names, and so they brought suit in the
circuit court of Clark county against
Black for S737.51. Judgment was given
them and Black promptly took an APP
peal to the supreme court, Il decision be-
ing handed down by Judge Burgess. in
division No. ,.
in that opinion Judge Burgess said
that the Missouri legislature, in 1887,
passed Il law prohibiting bucket shops,
and that section 1887 of the Revised
Statutes of 1889 condemned all such
transaction in grain on margins for flu
ture or optional delivery as gambling
whether sale or purchase was made by
anyone for himself, or rs agent or broker
for another. Duly incorporated mer-
chants exchanges, he said. were exempt
ed from the operation of this act. but in
the revision of the statutes of 1889 the
words other than a duly Incorporated
merchants exchange were dropped from
the section, so that the law since 1889 ap-
piled us well to merchants exchanges as
to other exchanges. The judge went on
to say that where such sales were made
without any intention of receiving and
paying for the property so bought or de-
livered. or the property So sold when the
seller did not intend actually to receive
full amount if purchased. such transac-
tions are defined to be gambling and I'M
lawful.
"Thc court found that Conner Bros.
when the sale was made. did not have
the grain on hand, and that Black, from