Opinion ID: 313974
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the legislative history of the exchange act.

Text: 27 Examination of the Congressional history reveals that the omission of rules or regulations from the terms of Sec. 25(a) was no mere oversight on the part of Congress. Rather, it was part of their specific intendment in drafting this legislation. This is most clearly revealed in the House floor debates on H.R. 9323 [73d Cong., 2d Sess.], the bill which eventually became the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 28 Although Sec. 19(b) was then numbered Sec. 18(b), the procedural portion of the subsection was practically identical to its current form. The one difference of any notice is that the section at that point specified that the Commission would carry out its duties under Sec. 19(b) only by rule or regulation. 29 Particularly relevant to our inquiry are the floor debates surrounding the proposed amendment of Rep. Fish of New York to delete the phrase by rules or regulations and substitute in the phrase by order. Rep. Fish stated the purpose of his amendment was to permit recourse to the courts by the exchange [affected by Commission action], whereas under 'rules or regulations,' the . . . Commission can do about anything it wants to the exchange and its members . . . without the exchange having any recourse whatever to the courts. 78 Cong.Rec. 8087 (5/4/34). 30 A supporter of the Fish amendment, Rep. Wadsworth, in seeking support for the amendment, clearly defined the purpose of the amendment: 31 [U]nder this section [as presently drafted], there is no recourse to the court. The final regulation of the Commission cannot be appealed from, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] is merely for the purpose of allowing an exchange, in case of an extreme ruling which threatens to injure its legitimate business and the business of buying and selling securities all over the country, the right to appeal.