The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-03-14

opinion that when q broker is pr1yy TO
the unlawful designs of a party, and
brings them together for the very pur-
pose of entering into an illegal agree
ment, he is partiseps cf1nin1s and can
not recover for services rendered, or
losses incurred by himself, on behalf
of either in forwarding the transac-
ton.
In Bickering VS.. Cease, 70 Illinois,
page 328, the Court says: Agreements
for the future delivery OF gram or any
other commodity are not prohlblted
by the common law, or the statutes OF
the State or by any policy adopted Tor
the protection Of the publlc. what
the law does prohibit, and would De
deemed detrimental to the genera genera
welfare, is specializing in dlfterences
in the market value. The alleged con-
tracts for August and September come
within this definition, no gram was
bought and paid for, nor DO we lhlhh
it was expected any would pe callea
for, nor that any would have been de-
livered had demand been hlaae'
What were these but opnonal CON
tracts in the most objectionable sense,
that is the seller had the privilege OF
delivering or not delivering, and the
buyer the privilege of calling or not
calling for the grain, just as they
chose. On the maturity or the CON
tracts they would be filed by ADJUST
ing the difference in the market Values,
being in the nature of ganhDilhs
transaction. The law Will tolerate no
such contracts.
Ballard VS. Green, los N. u, page
400 the same rule is enunciated.
These cases make the distinction pc
tween a legitimate contract for the
purchase and sale of property TO pc
delivered i'm the future and a purely
speculative contract perfectly Clear.
A contract for the purchase OF SAFE
of any commodity when the parlles
really intend and agree that the gooas
are TO be delivered by the seller, the
price to be paid by the buyer IS Vailo
and can be enforced, but If under the
guise of a contract the real intent IS
merely to speculate in the rise and ran
of the price, and-the goods are not 10 pe
delivered. such a contract is not only
void by the act of 80, but void on the
grounds of public policy; hence II inc
new act should be held unconstltu-
tional by reason of the Senate amend~
ment the act of $50 is still the law in
North Carolina, and if these bucKet
shops or so called exchanges nave peen
engaged in legitimate business ana
have not been violating the act OF ~,
it is difficult to understand why should
they so strenuously oppose the new
act? There is nothing in TINS act
which prevents a party from Selling
or purchasing any COMMODITY TO De
delivered in the future, provided Ii Is
a real bona fide purchase and sale,
and not a mere speculation in the rise
and fall of the market, and there Is
no provision in the new act Whlch
prohibits parties from circulating
contracts of this character me Dill
only effects parties violating the act
of 'S9, and the action of those SEEK
ing to contest the validity of the new
hin is n practical acknowledgment
that they have been conducting their
business in violation of this act, and
have been protected from prosecution
by the inability of the solicitor OF the
State to secure the testimony necessary
for their conviction, they realiZe now
that under the provision of section 8
of the new bill they can no longer Ylo-
late the law with impunity. win
Great respect for the lawyers who rep
resent the bucket shops and claims
that the Senate amendment inyalidates
the law l confess / fail to see the
force of their contention. This amend
ment was inserted in the bill TO re-
lieye the fear of the cotton manufac-
turers of the State who doubted
whether they could purchase cotton
for their mills to be delivered in the
who shared the same fear. 1t is not
pretended by any one that there is any
law upon our statute which forbids
any citizen from purchasing or selling
in the open market any commodity to
be delivered in the future, and the fear
of the mill men and the wholesale
merchants was groundless. rms
amendment does not confer upon the
mill men or wholesale merchants the
right to speculate in cotton or other
commodities. / concede if the Ian
guage of the amendments could be
thus construed the amendment would
be void for certainly it would not be
in the power of the Legislature to au-
thorize two classes of our people TO
violate a criminal statute of the State.
The simple reading of the amendment
forbidS such a construction. me
amendment is as follows THAT this
act shall not be construed so as to-
apply to any persons firm or corpora
tons or his or their agents, engaged
in the business of manufacturing or
wholesale merchandising, in the pur-
base or sale of the necessary commod-
tiles required in their ordinary bust
ness
In the case of Connely VS.. Union
Sewer Pipe Company, 1874. U. s., at
page 548, the court holds the Illinois
trust law unconstitutional, because of
the 9Th section of the act, which is as
follows: 1.-THE provision of this act
shall not apply to agricultural pro-
ducts or live stock while in the hands
of the producer or raiser, for it Vio-
lates that clause of the 14th amends
ment, which declares, THAT no State
shall deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the
law" Bucket shop men do not claim
that the are denied the protection OF
the law, their complaint is that they
are not permitted to- violate the law
There is not a line in the new bill
which deprives them of any right
which is enjoyed by any other citizen
of the State. The amendment simply
declares that the act shall mot be con-
strued to prohibit manufacturers and
wholesale merchants from purchasing
or selling the necessary commodities
required in the ordinary course Of
their business. The amendment was
entirely unnecessary. 1t simply antici-
pated the construction of the act
which no court could give to it, for
without such amendment the court
would have construed as legal the con-
tracts which the amendment seeks to
make valid. There is not line in the
bill which prohibits any citizen of