The daily morning journal and courier., 1897-12-14
MERCHANTS FAIL TO AGREE
(continued from First Page,)
lbmit my opinion for your consldera-


 submit my opinion for your considera- ton.
 The facts as gleaned by me regarding the system used by the Trading Stamp company are as follows: The Trading Stamp company sell to the merchants their stamps, agreeing at the same time that they will exchange for said stamps various kinds of personal property With the holder of such stamps, upon presen- tation at their place of business, in numbers to correspond with the stamp value of such articles of personal property. My opinion, based upon these facts is, That the Trading Stamp com pany Is doing a legitimate business; that its exchange of articles of personal property for the stamps, when properly presented to them, Is lawful; and they are in no way violating any law relat- ing to lotteries or gift enterprises.
 But section 2,569 of the general statute says: Every person who shall sell any personal property, to be ascertained by lot or hazard, or any article of value, or any interest therein, as a present or gratuity, the quality, kind, or value of which shall be unknown to the pur- CIldSGI dl lll0 kllllG OL 0stlCJ oileiAi AlAASN not more than three hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than three months, or both"
 This statute when construed to serve the requirements of this case reads as follows: Every person who shall sell any personal property, and shall offer the purchaser any article of value, or any interest therein, as, present or gratuity, the quality, kind, or value of which shall be unknown to the pur- chaser at the time of sale, shall be fined not more than three hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three months, or both.'
 You all admit that you give trading stamps to your customers, which en- titles them to some article of personal property when sufficient number of | them is presented at the store of the | Stamp company. This being true, the | gist of the statute then is: Did the GUS toner know the quality, kind and value | of the article he or she would receive in exchange for the stamps at the time of sale? I assume-and I think cor rectly-that they did not, because they | could not form an opinon of the quality, ! hlllu UT value Ul dLI ftItlClG ulItll illCS had seen the article, and this they could do only by going to the companys l store.
 l Therefore, during that period between | the time of the receipt of the stamps and the presentation of them to the | Stamp company, the customer is uncer- tain as to the quality, kind, or value of the article he or she is to receive. It Is | this uncertainty of the value of the ar ticle to be given to the customer by the I Trading Stamp company, on the presen 1 tation of the stamps, that brings il | within this statute. The law says that "the quality, kind, and value of the 1 article must be known to the purchaser at the time of the sale,' and this ] construe to mean that as soon as there l is meeting of minds between the mer. | chant and the customer as to the sale of personal property, followed by tht | gift of the stamps; then, at that very l moment, should the quality, kind anC value of the articles to which the 1 stamps entitle the customer, be knowr to him, or her. l This is utterly impossible for many reasons: First, Under the present sys 
 go to the place of business of tht Stamp company before he or she car ascertain what article their stamps en. title them to, and-secondly, because q the time of receiving the stamps they l may be undecided as to what particular article of personal property they desire
 It is my opinion that the gift of tht trading stamp by the merchant at thu time of making a sale, is within th meaning of this statute, because by tht gift of the trading stamp the merchan gives to the customer an interest II some other article of personal property the value of which is unknown at tht time of the sale.
 To conclude, it is my opinion that a the time of the sale by the merchant and the gift of the trading stamps tt the customer, the quality, Kind, ant value of the article to be given In ex change for the stamps by the Staml | company Is unknown to the purchaser therefore bringing 1t within the mean ing of the statutes, and In my opinion the vfolator of the law is the merchan who distributes the stamps to his GUS toners and not the original seller of thu stamp. Respectfully submitted,
 (Signed) JAMES E. O'CONNOR.
 The minority report was first discuss ed. The supporters of it were given chance to explain why it should be up held, and they did 1t in vigorous man ner. President Howe was probably tn strongest supporter. He referred t the recent decision of the court of ap peals and read the able opinion of tn court regarding it.
 Roger DeBussey and F. l. Atwate favored the adoption of the majorit report. Harry Leigh, J, B. Judson, H H. Guernsey, P. F. Lynch, M. Sonnen berg and MT. Davis, the clothier, al made remarks. They were of the sam nature as those made at the forme meetings.
 MT. Davis moved that the minorit report be voted bn in sections but thi was lost. ,
 A motion by Mir. Guernsey to indef nitely postpone all action regardin both reports was also lost.
 S. Goodman said: We have nor had three meetings and if we indefinite ly postpone the matter it will necessi tate another. Don't play the baby ac Let us adopt one or the other. Let u do something"
 M. Sonnenberg moved to change tn sum named from $500 to $200, but hi