New-York tribune., 1909-09-05
BIG BOARD WINS SUIT.
LITTLE EXCHANGE LOSES.
Justice Crane Denies Injunction
asked by Consolidated Broker.

The fine distinction between combinations in re.
strant of trade-otherwise known monopolies--
and combinations for the purpose Of defence
against business rivalry Is drawn In decision
handed down yesterday by Justice Frederick E
Crane Of the Supreme Court, Brooklyn The de-
cison Is rendered In the case of Marcus Helm q
Consolidated Exchange member, against the New
York Stock Exchange. Mr. Helm sought an IN
junction which would restrain the exchange from
enforcing a resolution which prevented Its mern-
bers-under penalty OF suspension or expulsion
from dealing with members OF the Consolidated
Exchange.
His action was based on the refusal OF Albert
Loeb & Co.. belonging to the big board" TO deal
with him. Their stand was taken on May q. and
they gave their reason that they were compelled
to cease dealings with him because of the resolu-
ton of their exchange. Their action was not IL
legal and the resolution of the Stock Exchange Is
perfectly fair and in accordance with Law. accosd
ing to Justice Crane.
The plaintiff is not driven out of the stock and
bond business" says Justice Crane, In denying the
request for injunction THE only condition
which tho resolution places upon him Is that he
shall not continue Indirectly to injure their busi
1t is Of give and take" He con-
tinues:
1t would be Illegal for them agree not 10 trans
reason than that they did not ike him or he
bine not to buy sell for him. while he was a
orsanizaon io any for this Would be clear ntes
ence with his liberty and direct attack upon him:
upon the ground that the plaintiff belongs 70 and
is actually engaged in building up and abl r sn
The distinction which the decided cases make is
the paintff is for the purpose Of nGring and and de-
ssroyng him Il Is Illegal but II logr 10 % 9 so
increase and strengthen the business or the aSSo.
Competition which the law leaves parties and
binations free to indulge In
Counsel for the PLAINTIFF had contended that ths
action Of the New York Stock Exchange violated
the public interest and caused Illegal combina-
tion In restraint OF trade. Justice Crane says:
Disposing of the second contention at the outset,
may say that II the stock Is b ts
ference with it's rules. resulatons and methods 6y
upon motion of non-members. CKilson agt The
Telegram Co and Others Is y T. ST t Eep 1
void as being an Illegal combination in restraint OF
trade. and may its enforcement be restrained az
Any one Of the members could refuse 20 do bust
an of the members individually gould refuse ;t 70
be e Business misrortune The question Is can the
members unite and agree not TO do business with
ciation?
The Court decided that the members could In
conclusion the Court says:
But supposing for the moment that the resOIu-
ton OF the Stock Exchange is Illegal as in restraint
tiff. non-member, could not enjoin its enforce
ment The members might disregard IL and con-
tnue doing business with the plaintiff and IL any
action was attempted 10 suspend or expel them.
have not this right. must seek damages at law
1t may be that the plaintiff and his associates
the stock Exchanse. but business is made up Of
inclusion. and while there is always a wide oppOr
tunity for fairness and magnanimity, the courts
interfere only when competition becomes combined
force seeking another's injury ruin Legislation
in OF the states pertaining to combination or
than here. but do not consider our law. which
was Chapter $50 OF the Laws of 1893 applicable TO
this case For the reasons expressed 1 shall deny
an injunction
The resolution prohibiting members OF the New
York Stock Exchange from transactins business
with active members OF the Consolidated Stock EX
change. which Mr.. Helm sought TO have set aside.
was adopted by the big board on May 1s 1t was
understood TO have been an outcome of the dis
Closures in the Ennis Stoppan failure that firm.
a large Consolidated Exchange house. having been
found 10 have had close relations with two or
three Stock Exchange firms
The rule reaftrmed The prohibition of COM
nunication between the Stock Exchange and Con-
soldated Exchange buildings. which had been in
effect since January. 1SSS. and also prohibited
communication OF any sort between the ofhce of a
Stock Exchange member and member OF the
Consolidated who engaged in business on the
latter exchange. which had been permitted under
the old rule.
Mr.. Helm. in his suit. alleged that the rule was
discriminative and established complete boycott.
OF which he and his fellow members OF the Con-
soldated were untustly made victims. Mr. Helm
Of the city yesterday and could be
reached. but his counsel, Charles A Towne, said
that the would be appealed. and that. with
respect due to the lower court they were confident
they were right. and that they would exhaust the
resources OF the law in effort to establish their
belief He added that II the highest court upheld
the decision OF Justice Crane the matter might bs
carried 20 the Legislature.
Edward l.. Baylies. OF Carter. Ledyard & Mil
burn, attorneys for the New York Stock Exchange
said that they were much grathed with the de-
cisoh.