Logan & Bryan v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co.

Decision Date02 January 1908
Docket Number1,620.
Citation157 F. 570
PartiesLOGAN & BRYAN v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH & CABLE CO. et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

(Syllabus by the Court.)

An action against the Attorney General and prosecuting officers of a state to enjoin them from instituting criminal proceedings is in effect an action against the state, and cannot be maintained in a court of the United States under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution.

A court of equity has no power to restrain criminal proceedings except when the equity proceedings are merely ancillary to proceedings already pending, or where property rights would be destroyed or rendered worthless by such criminal proceedings.

The right of a defendant, in an action in which the jurisdiction of a national court is invoked upon the ground that a federal question is involved to be sued in the district of which it is an inhabitant, is not jurisdictional, but merely a privilege which may be waived; and by entering an appearance generally and pleading to the merits the exemption is waived.

A statute making certain acts prima facie evidence of guilt is not unconstitutional as depriving a person of his liberty without due process of law, if he is permitted to rebut that presumption by proper proofs.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which prohibits a state from prescribing the evidence which is to be received in its courts, if the party is given an opportunity to explain away the prima facie presumptions of the statute.

Under the police power every state has the right to declare dealings in futures on margins gambling, and to prohibit them within its borders.

Under the police power every state has the power to determine what is injurious to public health or morals; but courts may look at the substance of things, and if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public morals has no real or substantial relation to that object, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.

Contracts permitting lotteries or dealings which are declared by later statute to be gambling or are harmful to the morals of the people, and for which declaration there is substantial ground, are not within the protection of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the impairment of contracts. They belong to the class of objects which demand the application of the maxim, 'Saius populi suprema lex,' and can no more be bargained away than the police power itself.

Under the police power it is within the power of a state to exclude everything which is dangerous to its citizens, their health or morals, or which may cause them to be defrauded.

Acts of a state in the proper exercise of its police power will not be declared void under the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States even if they do incidentally affect interstate commerce, if their main purpose is to protect its people against wrong and fraud, or against contagious diseases, or acts which will corrupt their morals.

To justify a court in declaring an act of a Legislature void, as being in conflict with the Constitution, it is not enough that the statute goes to the verge of constitutional power. It must appear clearly that it goes beyond the power. In case of real doubt, the law must be sustained.

Courts will refuse to enforce a contract, although lawful and enforceable in the courts of the nation where it is entered into and is to be performed, if it is against the public policy of the state in which it is sought to enforce it.

The public policy of a government is to be found in the statutes or, in the absence of a statute, in the decisions of its courts; but where the law-making power speaks upon a particular subject over which it has constitutional power to legislate, public policy in such a case is what the statute enacts.

Complainants, in their bill, allege: That they are commission merchants in Chicago, and that under the express terms of their articles of copartnership each and every member of the firm is expressly prohibited, both upon an individual account and in the name of the firm, from engaging in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in speculative dealings relating in any way to the business of the firm and in any and all the articles of trade or commerce in which the firm or any of its members are in any way authorized to buy or sell, or in any way deal in, upon any of the exchanges of the Board of Trade hereinafter referred to, or in any other commodity or thing, or in any place whatsoever. That the Postal Telegraph & Cable Company is a corporation created by the state of Texas, engaged in the telegraph business, and the other defendants are, respectively, the Attorney General of the state of Arkansas and prosecuting attorneys for certain judicial circuits of that state. That complainants are now, and have been for some time past, members of the Board of Trade of Chicago, the New York and New Orleans Cotton Exchanges and the New York Stock Exchange. That by contract entered into prior to January 8, 1907, the defendant telegraph company did, under and by authority of the powers it possessed, agree with complainants for the transmission of all quotations of the different exchanges before mentioned, and leasing of private wires for such transmission of all messages relating to their business, including quotations of prices. That the telegraph company had duly accepted the provisions of the acts of Congress relating to telegraph companies, and in pursuance thereof built its lines, connecting them with the cities where said exchanges are located and certain places in the state of Arkansas where complainants had correspondents located, and had also complied with all the laws of the state of Arkansas governing such corporations. That prior to January, 1907, complainants had entered into a contract with the said telegraph company for leases of private wires from the cities where said exchanges were located and a number of places in the state of Arkansas where complainants had correspondents; and thereupon they established, in connection with their business, certain offices in various places in the state of Arkansas for the purpose of transmitting over said leased wires all messages relating to their business.

The bill sets out fully the charters, regulations, and by-laws of the various exchanges of which they are members as aforesaid, which show that contracts for future delivery of the various articles and products were regularly made; that the quotations of these places are collected by them and furnished to the telegraph company, but upon condition that such quotations are not to be furnished by it to bucket shops or places where they are used as a basis for bets or illegal contracts of any kind, or where the contracts are to be settled merely by the difference in price, and not by actual delivery; that complainants had for some time prior to January 1, 1907, under their contract with the telegraph company, enjoyed the privilege of sending over their leased wires the quotations to their correspondents in the state of Arkansas, and these offices enjoyed the privilege of posting them on blackboards kept by these offices for the purpose of entering into contracts relating to purchase and sale of the said commodities, but only in strict conformity with the laws of said exchanges, and are in all respects lawful, and which are of great value to complainants; that all of said contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade contemplate a bona fide purchase and sale of property embraced in each transaction for actual delivery, subject to the rules and regulations of the said Board of Trade, and that all of such transactions are either for cash and present delivery, or future delivery actually to be made; that settlements are either made by actual delivery or offsetting similar contracts, but that for each contract whether for purchase or sale of any of the commodities, notwithstanding the mode of settlement by offset, they have valid outstanding contracts with other members corresponding to the particular commodity, and that all of their contracts are entered into and carried out in strict accordance with the charter and by-laws of the said Board of Trade, and not otherwise; that no contracts are ever accepted by complainants, except for actual purchase or sale and delivery, merely speculative contracts to be settled by differences being absolutely refused, and their contracts cannot be canceled except by an order to sell the commodity bought.

Similar by-laws and rules regulate the transactions on the New York and New Orleans Cotton Exchanges and also the New York Stock Exchange, with these differences: All contracts on the stock exchange for less than 100 shares must be for immediate delivery for cash at the agreed price, but if for over 100 shares or bonds the delivery may be made at the time specified in the contract, but subject to adjustment between the members of the stock exchange; but they have at all times existing valid contracts for each transaction. Their business in Arkansas, through its correspondents, netted them over $10,000 a year, which will be utterly destroyed unless permitted to receive the quotations, placing them on blackboards, and transmit orders over their leased private wires. Although entitled by law to the full enjoyment of carrying on their business as aforesaid, their business being exclusively interstate, the defendants the Attorney General and prosecuting attorneys of the state of Arkansas threaten to interfere with criminal proceedings to be instituted for such transactions, thus resulting in an endless...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Grimmett
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1920
    ... ... is constitutional. ( Logan & Bryan v. Postal Tel. & Cable ... Co., 157 F. 570; In ... ...
  • Ascher v. Edward Moyse & Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1912
    ...v. Williams, 122 N.Y.S. 392; Heard v. Taylor, 181 N.Y. 233; Seller v. Leiter, 189 N.Y. 367; Christie Grain case, 198 U.S. 236; Logan v. Telegraph Co., 157 F. 582; Parker Moore, 125 F. 807; Board of Trade v. Kinsey, 130 F. 512; Cleage v. Ladley, 149 F. 346; Farnus v. Whitman, 187 Miss. 381; ......
  • State ex rel. Collins v. Crescent Cotton Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1918
    ... ... 129, 6 L. R. A ... 119, 43 N.W. 789; Logan v. Postal Teleg. & Cable ... Co., 157 F. 570; Otis v ... ...
  • In re Arkansas Rate Cases
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • May 3, 1911
    ... ... Superior, 123 F. 357, 59 C.C.A. 481, 485; Logan & ... Bryan v. Postal Telegraph Co. (C.C.) 157 F. 570 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT