The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-09-13
HITS BOARD OF TRADE.
Judge Chytraus' Decision In
Goats Corner Cases.

Chicago. sept 1s.-Judge Chytraua'
decision Ia the July oats corner" injunc-
ton cases Ii Important and far reach
fnG. Not only does the opinion of the
court, IL sustained by higher tribunals,
put an end to all corners In cosnno-
dities on the exchange, but 1T strikes at
the very life Of the institution as now
organized. The directors for all time
they cannot longer eujudioate upon
property rights OF the members Of the
association. Judge aChytraus goes even
farther and says that under the char
ter Of the board Of trade there is no
and asks the pertinent question, What
should become at the corporation when
peFSGns now composing the original
board would be dead
by the commission Arm of Waite.
Thorburn & Co. against the Chicago
board OF trade. the Bank Of Montreal
and several prominent members of the
board of trade In which a temporary
injunction was granted to prevent mar
gins that were put up by the complains
ants from being handed down to the
contracting defendants. The claim was
made that the defendants had run
corner in July standard" oats. The
complainantA who had sold short to
the defendants, while not denying their
contracts and while declaring their
purpose to make good these same con-
tracts made protest against having the
case adjudicated by the board of trade
is provided by the bylaws OF the as
soeia ton, The ssstandardi' oats IN Ques-
ton was of grade and fineneSs almost
impossible to obtain in sufficient guam
tity to I'LL contracts during July because
of delay to crops by rainy weather. In
prices had been put on this commodity
and the complainants asked the court
to set a fair price between which price
and the one at which thew had con-
tracted the difference might be paid.
This was filed July 30-ene day before
settlements were required. Shortly af-
ter this 20 other cases were filed by the
same compliments against various de-
PENDANTS, 10 cases by Pratt. Buckley &
Co.; six cases by II. C. Avery & Co., and
one case by J. Henry Norton. BY COM
mon consent all cases are affected by
the same ruling.
The court said in ruling that as far
as the merits of the case were con-
cerned 1t did not matter whether there
was q corner. for it was taken for
granted that an honest price was In
tended. This part of the matter can be
decided at further hearing which will
tion in force until this hearing of facts
is had. The losing parties have APP
pealed, but this does not prevent fur
Their hearing.
cial committee which. according to the
board rules, should be arnointed by the
president to adjudicate such differences,
has no authority to act in matters
The rights of the directors of the board
to preserve the integrity of it's rules
SO far as disciplining members is con
cerned by fine. suspension or expulsion.
is upheld by the court as their proper
rights. but he rules against the ques-
ton that against the will of the conn
plainants the power of disposal over
that money which in a sense has been
select committee of three disinterestea
persons, members of the association to
be appointed by the president; l. e.,
where the money can be appropriated
Defendants"
Regardless of the fact that the COM
piainants agreed to be bound by the
rules which provide for settlements of
were not bound; that the arrogating OF
such power to such body was against
public policy, and sthat it would be
introducing sovereignties within a SOW
ere1gnty Tor the function of constituting
the law
The court goes into great detail to
learn the merits of the case, speaks at
some length of the operations upon the
board of trade, of the benefits to the
community from the institution and the
great influence it exerts upon the COM
merce of the world. 1t holds that as q
corporation not for profit it possesses
governmental and disciplinary powers
over the members that are not possessed
by stock corporations where money or
property rights are directly involved.
The general power to pass upon the
right OF property in the margins in
question, however. is held a Judicial
power, which never can be considered to
nave been delegated or confirmed by
dubious implication.
THE ordinary courts of Justice" said
the court, constituting one Of the
branches of our government, ought not
to be and should not submit to being
excluded or ousted of Jurisdiction by in
tendment''
With some sarcasm the court adds:
The mastery ingenuity of the plan
contr1ved to prevent appeal to the com
mon law courts of the state commands
our admiration. Think of the long time
OF operation that has proved the scheme
successful one. The loser who may
feel himself aggrieved and who NAV
know himself to have been wronged by
the operation of a corner or otherwise.
at law can only sue to get his money
back.
Even that remedy is by the resource
fulness OF the scheme abridged For il
is possible for him to do even that only
after he has an award or adjudication
against him by this board of trade COM
mittee OF tribunal"