Gilpin observer., 1902-03-06
BLOW AT GAMBLING
ILLEGAL TO DEAL IN FUTURES
Federal Supreme Court Sustains the
= Illinois Law Against II.

Washington, March 4.-1'he United
States Supreme Court to-day affirmed
the decree of the Supreme Court of the
state of Illinois In the case of Alfred q.
Booth VS.. the State of Illinois, invOlv-
Ing the validity of the state statut.
imposing fine of from $40 to $1,000
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 and was dissented from by
Justices Brewer and Peckham.
The Illinois law involved is section
$50 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 n 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 $1,000, 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
pdicted ION the charge of violating the
statute so far as it related to options to
buy grain or other commodities at a
future time" He was found guilty
and adjudged to pay fine of 500. In
the course of his opinion Justice Har.
Ian said
I'VE 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 a 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 OPP.
tions to sell or buy mt 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 time what
are known as corners. whereby the or
binary and regular sales or exchanges
of such property. based upon existing
prices. may be interfered 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 future time
were, in their essence. mere specula.
lions in prices and tended to foster a
spirit of gambling. In all this the leg
islature may have been mistaken. If
so. the mistake was not such as to JUS
tify the conclusion that the statute was
mere cover to destroy a particular
kind of business not inherently harm
fGl or immoral. 1t must be assumed
that the Legislature was of the opin-
ion that,an effectual mode to suppress
gambling grain contracts was to de
clare illegal all options to sell or buy
at future time. The court is unable
no say that the means employed were
not appropriate to the end sought to
he attained. and which it was compe-
tent for the state to accomplish. We
cannot adJudge that the Legislature of
Illinois transcribed the limits OF con.
stitutional authority when enacting the
statute in question
The opinion of the Supreme Court Of
Illinois was affirmed.