Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-03-04
STATE LIN Is UPHELD
United States Supreme Court
Sustains Illinois Law Against
Dealing in Futures.
Means the Prohibition OF Puts
and Calls on the Board Of
Trade.
|
Dealing in Futures Declared t.
Be Gambling. Which Law
Can Stop.

Washington, March 4.-The United
States supreme court has affirmed the
decree of the supreme court of the
state of Illinois in the case of Alfred
G. Booth VS.. the state of Illinois, in
volving the validity of the state statute
imposing fine of from $40 to $1,000
for dealing in futures. The decision
OF the state court upheld the law and
today's 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
1870 of the criminal code of the state
and it provides that whoever contracts
to have or give to himself or another
the option to sell or buy at future
time any gain or other commodity. OF
forestalls the market by spreading
false rumors to influence the price OF
commodities or corners the market
shall be fined not less than SO nor
more than $1,000, or confined in the
county jail not to exceed one year, OF
both.
In delivering his opinion of the court
Justice Harlan said that Booth had
been indicted ION the charge of violat-
ing the statute so far as 1T related to
options to buy grain or other commod-
tiles at future time" He was found
guilty and adjudged to pay a fine OF
500.
In the course of his opinion, Justice
Harlan, said:
I'VE can not say from any facts judi
cially known to the court or from the
evidence in this case that the prohibi-
ton of options to sell grain at a flu
ture time has in itself no possible re-
lation to the suppression of gambling
in grain contracts in respect of which
the parties contemplate on settle
ment on the basis of differences in the
contract and market prices. Perhaps
the legislature thought that dealings
in options to sell or buy at a future
time, altho not always or necessarily
gambling, 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 purchasers to
establish for a time what are known
as corners, whereby the ordinary and
regular sales or exchanges, of such
property based upon existing prices
may be interfered with, and persons
who have in fact no grain and do not
care to handle any are enabled to prac-
tically control prices. Or the legisla-
ture may have thought that options to
sell or buy at a future time We're. in
their essence, speculations in prices
and tended to foster a spirit of gamb-
ling. In all this the legislature may
have been mistaken. If so, the mistake
was not such as to justify the conclu-
sion that the statute was mere cover
to destroy particular kind Of busi-
ness not inherently harmful or i'm
moral 1t must be assumed that the
legislature was of the opinion that an
mode to suppress gambling in
grain contracts was to declare Illegal
all options to sell or buy at a future
time The court is unable to say that
the means employed We're not appro-
pirate to the end sought to be attained
and which 1t was competent for the
state to accomplish.
I'VE can not adjudge that the legis-
lature of Illinois transcribed the limits
of constitutional authority when en-
acting the statute in question"
The opinion of the supreme court of
Illinois was affirmed.