New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-09-14
NOMOREC CORNERS INGRAM
CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE sHoRN OF
IT'S POWERS BY COURT.

: Chicago. Sept 13-An- important oeciSioii
against the Chicago Board OF 1raoe was ieh-
dered to-day by Judge Axei ChS oaus III 'i,e
July oats corner" injunction casts W. '
does the opinion of the court. II sus'aieu NY
hiaber tribunals put an END TO all colheis III
! commodities on this exchange, out IL stllhes a.
t . life of the institution now organized
The directors for all time nave had lheil po"eiS
so curtailed that they cannot longer ad1uaicate
~, ro-ar,,, rights of the members of the associ-
alton. Judge Chytraus goes even iurther' ana
60 .ho+ ,,,dcr the charter of the Board of
Trade there is no provision for succession of
membership and he asks what should De-
come of the corporation When persons no"
CONFUSING the original board would be deaa!
Tho emit in question was brought by the
commission firm of WAITE ihor oufh q ~
against the Chicago Board of Trade, the BANK
of Montreal and several prominent members
of the board. A temporary injunction was
ora,ta5 IN prevent margins put up by the COM
n1ainan+s from being handed down to the con-
tracing defendants. The charge was made that
the defendants had run a corner IN july STAN
dora oats The cCmplanants, who had sold
ho+ to tho defendants, while not denying their
CONTRACTS and while declaring their purpose to
.oa,a good these contracts, protested against
tho adjudication of the case by the Board of
Trade &C proyided in the bylaws OF the associa-
ton.
The court said that as far as the merits OF the
,asa were concerned it did not matter Whethsr
there was corner. for 1t was taken IOr granted
+ba+ an honest price was intended This part or
the sut will be decided at a further hearing.
The decision holds the injunction in force until
this hearing is held
The ,ist of the decision is that special COM
uittae which according to the Board rules
tod nv
cato such differences, has no authority to act
,,ere nronertv rights are involved. and cannot
7;osa of money which has In a sense been
,ooea in excess The rights of the directors
of the Board to preserve the integrity or It's
rules so far as disciplining members is con-
cerned by fine, suspension or expulsion is up
held Regardless of the fact that the COM
r,;,an+s agreed to be bound by the rules pro-
viding for settlements of disagreements. the
court ruled that they were not bound, that the
arrogating of such power to such body was
against public policy and that ut would in
PRODUCING sovereigntes within sovereignty
for the function of constituting the law"
The court speaks at some length of the opera
tIons on the Board OF Trade, the benefits TO the
community from the institution. and the great
influence it exerts on the commerce of the world
1t holds that as a corporation not for profit. it
possesses governmental and disciplinary powers
over the members tfat not possessed by
stock corporations, where money or property
rights are directly involved The general power
to pass on the right Of property in the margins
in question. however is held to be judicial
power which never be considered dele
gated or confirmed by dubious implication.
The court adds:
The mastery ingenuity of the plan contrived
to prevent an appeal to the common law courts
Of he
OF the long time of operation that has proved the
scheme u successful one The loser who may
feel himself aggrieved, and who may know MINI
self wronged by the operation OF q corner or
otherwise, at law can only sue to get his money
back Even that remedy is. by the resourceful-
ness of the scheme. abridged. For II is possipIe
for him to do even that only after he has an
award or adjudication against him by this
Board OF Trade committee or tribunal.