Opinion ID: 1547000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Application for Dismissal.

Text: After denial of the above motions, the respondents filed an Application for Dismissal of Proceeding. This Application called to the attention of the Commission certain matters occurring after filing of the above motions and answers and the submission of such motions. Those new matters were as follows: (a) Passage of the Future Trading Act (Aug. 24, 1921, 42 Stat. L. 187), and designation of the Chamber as a contract market by the Secretary of Agriculture under authority of that act. The inconsistency of the supervision given the Secretary of Agriculture under that act with the exercise of the powers of the Commission over such matters as are covered by this complaint. The voluntary admission to membership in the Chamber of representatives of co-operative associations of producers who may rebate commissions to bona fide members of such associations. The pendency of a suit in the Supreme Court (Hill v. Wallace) to test the validity of such act. Respondents suggested suspension of further proceedings herein until determination of that litigation. (b) The attention of the Commission was called to an act of the Minnesota Legislature (March 18, 1921, c. 99) declaring exchanges like the Chamber to be public markets and regulating memberships and membership rights therein. Also to chapter 314 of the Laws of Minnesota 1921, placing such markets under the supervision of the State Railroad and Warehouse Commission. Also to rules regulating such markets promulgated by that Commission under authority of said chapter 314. Respondents contended that unless the Future Trading Act be held to put such regulation within the exclusive control of the Secretary of Agriculture, that the above state acts were valid exercises of the police power of the state and controlling. In passing it may be noted that the suit  Hill v. Wallace, 259 U. S. 44, 42 S. Ct. 453, 66 L. Ed. 822  was decided May 15, 1922, and the act was held invalid. This Application was deferred, on July 1, 1922, until the complaint should be presented on its merits. Hearing under the complaint began September 5, 1922.