The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1923-04-16
SECOND ACT TO
G0BEF0RE THE
HIGHEST COURT
Objections in Former Decis-
ion Met in New Proposal
Court Finds
INTERSTATE BUSINESS
Finds that Chicago Board DC.
cupies Place in Inter-
statement Movement

, aShInSton, April lG.--Thc grain
futures act was declared valid and
constitutional today by the supreme
court
1t was the second time the court
has passed on the validity of "a grain
futures trading law, a previous sta
tutc passed, based on the power uf
the federal government having bee
held unconstitutional.
The law upheld today was base
on the right to control intcrstate
commerce.
Justice Taft, in delivering the
opinion, said the decision in tn
former grain future case was in an,
gument in favor Of the constitution
aiIty of the present law because in
the latter the court had met obiet
hons which the court had pointea
out made it invalid. 1t is imposs;
Die the court said to distinguish be
tween transactions in cash traip
and grain to arrive from spot shin
ment which the court had held TO
be interstate commerce.. The grail
exchange, the court said, was merely
the gateway through the grain flow
! IN It's course from west to east and
! Europe.
Sales Necessary
Sales on the Chicago board nf
trade are as neccssa to the cor
tlnuity of the flow of grain. tn,
/ court held, as are stockyard sales IN
! the movement of cattle. It W.
! added that the evidence showed th9t
! futures trading does have an ctrcrt
! on the cash price Of grain.
/ The fact that corners in r,nin
nave been brought about by dca
ing in futures evidenced, the coult
/ said, the relation between futu,a
trade and cash trade.
! The Chicago board of trade. The
! court concluded. in engaged in -
business which makes il sub ;cct tn
national regulation.
Justices McReynolds and Suthcr-
land dissentcd
Second Time Up
Federal control Of the grain cv-
! changes of the country was brourr
INTO question for a" second time ,o
the attack by the Chicago Board .f
Trade upon the grain futures act
Alter years of agitation for fed
erai sup,\ lslon over exchange uuo.
tatons in grain futures, based an
the theory that "gambling'' throurb
inc use of the quotations by ire
sponsible wire houses should %.
suppressed, Congress enacted
gram futures law. 1t was spons
by the Form Bloc and It's object Wa
declared to be the sterilization az
prices for the benefit of the produ.
cr by the elimination of all spccula
tive features. Federal control W.
based upon the taxing power of IT,
government, but the Supreme Cou,,
heId the law unconstitutional and n.
attempt by Congress to regulatr
something over whtcl it mad no iur
isdiction.
r Congress promptly met the issue
by re-enacting all the principal rcgu
latory features Of the law, but as
Sertlng jurisdiction under its DOW
or to regulate interstate commerce
The Chicago Board of Trade, in it,
own behalf and as representative O..
the interests of the other grain ex.
changes of the country, immediatel,
attacked the revised law, contending
that the exchange transactions which
1T sought to supervise and regulat,
could not be made interstate cor,
merce by an arbitrary declaration ty
Congress.
Although they were unable 20
agree as to the motive for the Legs
lation, there was no divergence Of
opinion among the litigants as 10
its effect. The grain exchanges d.
rected their principal opposition 10
that provision under which represon.
tatives of farmers cooperative as
soclatlons were made eligible to
membership, insisting that the ex
change organizations were strittly
devoid of any public interest, and
should remain within the control ~
those who formed them.
U. s. Position
The federal government insisted
that the price the farmers received
for their grain was determined hv
the quotations made upon the eA
changes, which had been subject to
violent fluctuations and nanip,la
ton by spectators, and that the
quotations would not accurately re-
fleet the actual value of the nro
ducts until the Federal government
exercised supervision over the trans
actions. The fundamental question:
presented from the viewpoint of the
government was whether the grain
exchanges or Congress should repu
late the great current of com
merce" flowing between the produc
ing-selling and the purchasing-e
suming markets.
Oppose Coop. Membership
The "benefcent aspects" Of the
grain futures act justified the ex-
crcise of the congressional power
far beyond anything contained il,
the Packers and Stockyards' hct.
the government asserted.
Contending that i:le law would
compel the exchanges to admit Ia
"a MflMnt&Au~AA ~.