The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-05-26
THE WILMINGTON MESSENGERS, FRIDAY, MAY rs, 100

ted. (which Is yet the Supreme court or
Illinois, we believ@, has been carsfa.
not to intimate. II does not follow that
it should not be protected in this suit.
The question whether IL should be In
wolves several elements which we
shall take up In turn.
In h first place, apart from SPECIAL
objections. the plaintiffs collect.on OF
quotations Is enu,ied to the protection
Of the law. It stands like q trade se-
cret The plaintiff has the right Z,
keep the work which 1t has done. Or
paid for doing u itself. The fact that
others might do similar work IL they
might. does not authorize them TO
steal the plaintiffs. Compare Bless.eia
VS.. Donaldson Lithographing Co., ISs
U. s., 239, 249, 250. The plaintiff does
not lose its rights by communicating
the result I o persons, eve IL MANY.
in confidential relations to itself, IN
der q contract not to make 1t public.
and strangers to the trust will DO re-
strained from getting at the knowledge
by inducing a breach of trust and using
knowledge obtained by such a breach
Exchange Telegraph Co., v. Gregory
& Co. t1SS9). 1 @. B. D., 147; +. n.
Dodge Company V. Construction Infor-
nation Co., 1S3 Mass, 81; Board OF
Trade v. c. B. Thompson Commission
Co., 103 Fed. Rep, 902; Board OF Trade
V. Haddon Krull Co., 100 Fed. Rep ].
705; National Tel. News Co. VS.. West
ern Union Tel. Co, 119, Fed. Rep. .af:
Illinois Commission Co., 119, Fed. Rep.
301.
The publications insisted on in some
of the arguments were publication N
breach of contract, and do not Affect
the plaintiffs rights. Time is of the
essence in matters like this aud 1t
fairly may be said, that If the contracts
with the plaintiff are kept, the infor-
nation will not become public prop
erty until the plaintiff has gained its
reward. A priority of a few minutes
probably is enough.
If then the plaintiffs collection of
information is otherwise entitled 10
protection, it does not cease to be so,
even if it is information concerning
illegal acts. The statistics of crime are
property to the same extent as IN
other statistics, even if collected by a
criminal who furnishes some of the
data. The Supreme Court of Illinois
has recognized in the fullest terms tie
value and necessity of he knowledge
which the plaintiffs control. 1t must
nave known, ven il it did MOI have
the evidence before 1t, as to which We
cannot tell from the report n was
the course of dealing on the exchange.
Yet it was so far from suggesting that
the plaintiffs work was unmer1torioas
that it held it clothed with a public
use. New York 6 Chicago Grain ant
Stock Exchange VS.. Board of Trade,
1877 ILL.,, 1872.
The defendants lay hold of che dec
laration in the case last cited and say,
with doubtful consistency, that this
information is of such Importance that
it is clothed with a public use and that
therefore they are entitled to get n
use it. In the case referred to II was
held that the plalI.tiff, which had been
receiving continuous quotations, was
entitled still % receive them on paying
for them and submitting to all ceason-
able requirements in relation TO the
same. Perhaps The right of the plain
tiff would have been more obvious II
it had demanded an opportunity on rea-
sonabie conditions Of collectingthe in
formation for itself, especially IL the
legislature had seen fit to provide by
law for it's doing So. But it Is not
necessary to consider whether We are
bound by that decision, or, II not,
should follow it, since in these cases
the claim is not qualified by submis-
sion to reasonable rules or an offer OF
payment. 1t is a claim of Independent
rights and a denial that the plaintiff
has any right at all. The Supreme
court of Illinois gave no sanction TO
such a claim as that.
Finally it is urged that the contracts
with the telegraph companies violate
the act of July 2, 1890, C. CAT, GIG Stat,
2O9). The short answer is thai the
contracts are not relied on as a u
OF action. They are stated simply 10
show that the only communication OF
it's collected facts by the plaintiff is
a confidential communication, and ooes
not destroy the plaintiffs rights. But
so far as these contracts limit the
communication Of what h ptalrt.n
might have refraiDed from communi-
eating to any one, there is no monop-
oily or attempt at monopoly, n no
contract in restraint Of trade, either
under the statute or at common law,
E. Bement & Sons VS.. National Harrow
Co., 1856 U. S., 20; Fowle VS.. Park, III
Z. S.. So; Gilman vs. Darlington, Q3oD
2 CT. 275. 1t is argued that the true
purpose is to exclude all persons Who
do not deal through members Of the
Board of Trade. Whether there is
anything in the law to hinder these
regulations being made with that in
tent we shall not consider, as we do
O regard such a general scheme as
shown by the contracts or proved. A
scheme to exclude bucket shops Is
shown and proclaimed, no doubt--and
the defendants, with their contention
as to the plaintiff, call this an attempt
at a monopoly in bucket shops. But
it is simply a restraint on the ac1uisi-
ton for illegal purposes of the fruits
of the plaintiffs work. Central Stock
& Grain Exchange VS.. Board OF Trade,
1876 ILL.,, 396. We are Of the opinion
that the plaintiff is entitled TO an in
junction as prayed.-Raleigh Post