Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1923-04-16
GRAIN FUTURES
TRADING Law
is FOUND VALID
Supreme Court Of u. S. To-
day Hands Down Decision
Of Great Importance on
Grain Futures Trades
tBy The Associated Press.b

WASHINGTON. ID. C. April 16.--The
cIarcd valid and constitutional by the
supreme court Of the United States.
Federal control of the grain exchanges
Of the country was brought into ques-
tion for n second time in the attack by
the Chicago Board or Trade upon the
grain futures act.
After years Of az tation for federal
supervision over exchange quotations in
grain futures, based on the theory that
gambling" through the use OF the
quotations by irresponsible "wire
houses" should he suppressed, Congress
enacted grain futures law. II was
ponsored by the E-rm Bloc and its OBJ
ject was declared to he the xsabilization
Of prices for the benefit Of the producer
BY the elimination OF all specuIativs
features Federal control was based upon
the taxing power or the government. but
the supreme court held the law uncon-
stitutional and an attempt BY Congress
to regulate something over which il had
no jurisdiction.
Congress promptly met the issue by
re-enactng I'll the principal regulatory
features Of the law. but asserting juris-
diction under its power to regulate in
terstate commerce. The Chicago Board
of Trade. in its own behalf and as rep
rcsentative of the interests Of the other
grain exchanges Of the country. imme-
diately attacked the revised law. con-
tending that the exchange transactions
which il sought TO supervise and regu-
late could not be made interstate COM
merce by an arbitrary declaration OF
Congress.
The federal government insisted that
the price the farmers received for their
grain was determined by the Quotations
made upon the exchanges. which had
been subject to violent fluctuations and
manipulation by spectators. and that the
quotations would not accurately reflect
the actual value cf the prodrtS until the
federal government exercised supervision
over THE transactions. The FUNDAMENTAL
question presented from the viewpoint
of the government was whether the
grain exchanges or congress should regu-
late the great current of commerce
flowing between the producing selling and
the purchasing consuming markets.
The decision ef the Snprem. Court
holding constitutional the Packers and
StockyardS' act was principally relied
upon hy the government ~ sustain the
grain futures net. psshouEh the decision
of the court in fnr first grain futures
ease was quoted iiberally in support VI
the contention that congress had cor
rected the defects found in the first
law hy declaring in the secend that sales
for future delivery directly intrrfered
with Interstate commerce and were an
obstruction and a burden 10 IL. Congress
was within its powers ~ defined Nv the
courts. the government insisted. In con
cluding from the evidence presented to
il that the federal government must as
snme control ami supervision ~ remove
the direct hurtlrns from interstate com-
merrr which Aad heen imposed nv the
methods and practices of the grain ex-
changes.
The -benefirient aspects Of the grain
futures act justified the exercise ~ the
congressional power far beyond anything
cont aimed ia the Packers and Stock
yards Act. the government asserted.
Although they were unable 10 agree as
to the motive for the legislation. there
was no divergence Of opinion among
the litigants a TO its effect. The grain
exchanges directed their principal op-
position to that provision under which
representatives or farmers cooperative
association were made eligible TO men,
bership. insisting that the exchange or
CARNATIONS were strictly devoid cf <ny
public interest. and should remain with
in the control or those who formed them.