The Holly chieftain., 1902-03-07
BLOW AT GAMBLING
ILLEGAL TO DEAL. IN ruruass
Federal suprsms Court sustaIns th,
lllineis Law Against II.

FsosfAl ovpreme Court oueSatne ths
lillnels Law Against u.
Washington, March 4.-Ti,e Unired
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
imposing 4 fine OF from $40 to $1,000
for dealing In futures: The decision Of
the state court upheld the law and to-
The opinion was handed down by JUS
tice Fuller and was dlssented from by
Justices Brewer and Peckham.
The Illinois law involved s section
130 Of the criminal code Of the state,
and 1t 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
runlors 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.
dicted ION the charge Of violating the
statute 80 far as 1t related to options to
buy grain or other commodities at a
future time" He was found guilty
and adjudged to pay fine Of 800. 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 a settlement on
the basis Of differences In the contract
and market prices. Perhaps the Leg
islature thought that dealings In op-
tions 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 knownsas corners, whereby the or
dinary 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.
tions in prices and tended to foster a
spirit Of gambling. In all this the leg
islature may have been mistaken. II
30, the mistake was not such as to JUS.
tify the conclusion that the statute wa,
a mere cover to destroy a particular
kind Of business not Inherently harm
full 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 BIZ,
at a future time. The court ls unable
to say that the means employed were
not appropriate to the end sought ia
be attained, and which 1t 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.