The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-03-23
THE BUCKET SHOP LAW.


The doubt as to whether the Eller
amendment to the Woodland anti-buck-
ct shop law invalidates that new law
has caused some of the first lawyers
i'm the State to examine the act care
fully. Some of them have given a
formal opinion that the Eller amend
ment destroys the law in that it is in
conflict with the fourteenth amend
ment to the Federal Constitution. 9th
ers are equally clear hat the E1ler
amendment in no sense invalidates the
Woodland act and that it will stand and
do the business" as if that amend
ment had not been incorporated in the
act. This paper has published two
opinions with reference to the act
the one Numerically opposed to the
other. Talking a few days ago with
one of the ablest lawyers in North
Carolina, the editor of this paper re-
quested the lawyer to read both views,
study the act and write his opinion
upon the question raised as to the
validity of the act. In response to
that our lawyer friend writes as fol-
lows:
II have been considering the Wood.
ard act relating to futures, and have
concluded that those opposed to the
act are both right and wrong as to
their construction of it. There are
two rules of construction applicable
to it, One is that if the different
parts of an act of the Legislature are
oa11 fltI hot
parts cannot be separated, and it is
apparent that one part would not
have been enacted without the other
and one part is void that the whole
act is void and the converse of this is
that if the parts of the act can be
separated and it is apparent that the
Legislature would have passed the
valid part of the act without those
parts that are invalid that the court
will sustain those parts that are not
contrary to law.
1T must be remembered that prior
to the act of 1905 under the act of
1889 any party to a contract for flu
lures was indictable, and that any
agent of any party TO such contract
was indictable.
Section 1 of the Act of 1905 creates
q new offence and it is the only section
of the act that creates any offence.
This section provides substantially that
it shall be indictable for any person
or corporation to open an office for
the purpose of engaging in the bust
ness of making contracts in regard to
futures. Section 2 of the act imposes
a penalty for violation of section L.
Sections 8, 4, and relate simply
rules of evidence and it is noticeable
that by the terms of these sections
these rules of evidence are applicable
to indictments under the Act of 1889
1905. Section Z contains the provision
that this act shall not be applicable
to any person engaged in manufacture
ing, etc.
at seems to me that this last sec
ton creates a discrimination which
will not be allowed and that it rem
ders void the provisions of section l
and of the act but it seems to me
equally clear that it would not affect
the other sections of the act in regard
to evidence and that those sections
would be applicable upon the trial of
an indictment under the Get of 1889.
III my view is correct indictments
should be framed under the Act of
1889 and no indictment can be MAIN
tanned for a violation of section / of
the Act of 1905. This will not mater
tally affect the purposes of the act as
under this construction a man who is
party to a contract known as flu
ture contract is indictable and the
agent of any such party is also indict-
able. The man who keeps bucket
shop is either a party to the contract
or an agent of the party
IL this lawyer is right, the evil that
was desired to be reached can be
reached, but solicitors must draw their
indictments under the Act of 1889 and
not under the Woodar act The solicit
tors should thoroughly investigate this
matter before drawing bill, and be
careful to draw one that will hold. We
give emphasis to the view of the law
yer quoted above because his opinion
is entitled to as much weight as that
of any jurist in North Carolina.