The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1905-05-16
FUTURES NOT GAMBLING
Chicago Board Of Trade Wins Suits
in Supreme Court
justices Harlan, Brewer and Day Dissent
--Opinion In Brief of Chief
Justice Holmes.

washington, u. y. - The Supreme
Court of the United States decided the
cases of the Board of Trade of Chicago,
Ill, against the G. G. Christie Commits
sion Company, Of Kansas City. MO-,
and the Kinsey Company. of Chicago.
I'LL, involving the right of the private
concerns to use the continuous quota
lions Of the board. in favor OF the con-
tentions of the Board Of Trade. Both
concerns resented the designation Of
bucketshop, and it was charged that
the transactions of the board are of a
nature to justify the Characterization
of the board as bucketshOp, a major
ity of them involving no physical trans
fer of the property supposed to be
transferred. Summing up the points
involved, Justice Holmes, in delivering
the opinion of the court, said that the
board supplies it's quotations to the tel
egraph companies under a contract not
to deliver them to bucketshops, and the
cases were instituted to prevent the
use of the figures by private houses
without contracts with the Board of
Trade. He added that a majority OF
the court was not prepared to say that
the transactions of the board consti-
tute gambling, and the decision was
that the injunction should be granted
as prayed for.
Justices Harlan. Brewer and Day
dissented.
In his opinion, Justice Holmes char
acterized the Board of Trade as a
great market where, through its 1900
members, is transacted large part of
the grain and provision business of the
world" Speaking of dealings in fu-
lures he said:
People will endeavor to forecast the
future and to make agreements accord
ing to their prophecy. Speculation of
this kind by competent men is the self
adjustment of society to the probable.
Its value is well known. as a means of
avoiding or mitigating catastrophes,
equalizing prices and providing for pc
RODS of want. When the Chit
cago Board of Trade was organized
we cannot doubt that it was expected
to afford a market for future as we'll as
present sales, with the necessary Incl
dents of such market and while the
State of Illinois allows the charter to
stand, we cannot believe that the pits,
merely as places where future sales
are made, are forbidden by the law"
He said that agreements made on
the Exchange are in the nature of con-
tracts, and continued
'The fact that contracts are satisfied
by set-offs and by the payment of diff
ferences detracts in no degree from the
good faith of the parties; and if the
parties know when they make such
contracts that they are very likely to
have a chance to satisfy them in that
way and intend to make use of it, that
fact is perfectly consistent with a se-
rious business purpose and an intent
that the contract shall mean what 1t
says. 1t seems to us an un-
likely and an extraordinary PROPOSE
ton that the dealings which give it's
character to the great market for fu-
ture sales in this country are to be re-
garded as mere wages, or as pretended
buying or selling, without receiving
and paying for the property bought, or
of delivering the property sold within
the meaning of the Illinois act
The sales in the pits are not pretended.
but are meant and supposed to be bind
ing. A set-off is in legal effect deliv-
cry"
Even admitting, the Justice said,
that the Board of Trade does maintain
a place where unlawful transactions
are permitted, it does not follow that
it should not be protected in this suit.
The board has "the right to keep the
work which it has done or paid for do
ing to itself" !,