The Grit-advocate., 1902-03-07
BLOW AT GAMBLING
ILLEGAL TO DEAL IN FUTURES.
Federal Supreme Court Suetains the
Illinois Law Against 1t.

Washington, March l.-The United
States Supreme Court to-day affirmed
the decree Of the Supreme Court Of the
state of Illinois in the case of Alfred g.
Booth VS.. the State Of Illinois. involv
ing the validity Of the state statute
imposing fine Of from SO to 1000
for dealing in futures. The decision Of
the state court upheld the law and to-
days opinion sustained that decision.
The opinion was handed down by JUS
tice Fuller ard was dissen;ed from by
Justices Brewer and Peckham.
The Illinois law involved is section
1870 of the criminal code of the state.
and it provides that whoever contracts
to have or give to himself or others
option to sell Or buy at future time
any grain or other commodity. or fore
stalls the market by spreading false
rumors to influence the price of com
modities, or corners the market. shall
be fined not less than $40 nor more
than 1000, or be confined in the coun-
ty Jail not exceeding one year. or both.
In delivering the opinion Justice
Harlan said that Booth had been in
licted "On the charge of violating the
statute so far as it related to options to
buy grain or other commodities mt Il
future time" He was found guilty
and adiudged to pay fine of 500. In
the course of his opinion Justice Har.
Ian said:
We cannot say from any facts judi
cially known to the court or from the
evidence in this case that prohibition
of options of selling grain at n future
time has in itself no possible relation to
the suppression of gambling in grain
contracts in respect of which the par
ties contemplate only settlement on
the basis of differences in the contract
and market prices. Perhaps the Leg
islature thought that dealings in op-
'ions to sell or buy at future time
although not always or necessarily
gambling. may have the effect to keep
out of the market while the options
last the property which is the subject
OF the options and thus assist the pur.
chasers to establish for a time what
are known as corners. whereby the or
binary and regular sales or exchanges
OF such property. based upon existing
prices. may be intcrfered with and per.
SONS who have in fact no grain and
do not care to handle any. are gambling
IN the property to control prices. Or
the Legislature may have thought that
options to sell or buy at a future time
were. in their essence. mere specula-
tons in prices and tended to foster a
spirit of gambling. In all this the leg
lslature may have been mistaken. If
so. the mistake was not such as to il,s-
li1y the conclusion that the statute was
Il mere cover TO destroy Il particular
kind of business not inherently harm.
1ui or immoral. 1t must be assumed
that the Legislature was of the opn-
ION that an etfect;!al mode to suppress
gambling grain contracts was to de-
clare illegal all options to sell or buy
at Il future time. The court is unable
to say that the means employed were
not appropriate to the end sought to
he attained. and which it was compc-
tent Tor the state to accomplish. We
cannot adjudge that the Legislature Of
lliihols transcended the limits of CON
stitutional authority when enacting the
statute in question"
he opinion Of the Supreme Court of
Illinois was affirmed