Misra; calm s srocu mxcnancm v. wmsr. U. ran. oo. 25
of business between them. Their sessions are not required to be ‘
public, and nothing is stated in this bill showing or tending to show
why persons, not members of the board, have any right to be in-
formed as to prices or the extent of dealings at the sessions of the
board.
I deem it suiiicient for the purposes of this motion to say that this
court has heretofore decided, in cases which seem to me entirely
analogous to this in principle, that the board has control of its own
iioor, and can admit such persons as it sees Ht; that it can make its
transactions wholly secret, and keep them within the knowledge of
its own members, or make them public so far, and only so far, as the
board itself or its members may see fit to do so. A membership of
the board is expensive, and an admission to membership is wholly
within the discretion of the proper officers of the association. In-
formation as to the condition of the demand and prices for commod-
ities dealt in on the board in other markets is collected and announced
among the members of the board during the daily sessions of its
members, and this information, together with reports of prices and
dealings between the members at these sessions, if given as a matter
of right to any one demanding the same, would give to persons not
members nearly if not quite all the advantages of membership with-
out the attendant expense and responsibility. Being made up of
sellers and `buyers representing producers and consumers all over`the
country, there can be no danger but what abundant intelligence as to
prices and transactions on the board will be widely published, and
made part of the current every-day news; but it is not this kind of
r information that the complainant wishes. What it demands as a
matter of right in the name of the public is instantaneous notice by
telegraph of all change of prices on the board, which can only be
wanted for the purpose of conducting the operations of the complain-
ant outside the board. The people at large cannot, in the nature of
things, have any more interest in the success of complainant’s busi-
ness than in that of any other broker or commission dealer; and the
demand by complainant that it shall be offered by the board the
facilities for business which others only get through their membership
of the board seems to me wholly unwarranted. I cannot, therefore,
see that any consideration of public policy should deny to the board
the right to decide to whom the reports of its dealings, collected by
its own employes, shall be distributed.
For these reasons, and others more fully stated in preceding cases,
the injunction is dissolved.
See Metropolitan Grain db Stock Exchange v. Chicago Board of Trade, 15
Fm]? Rnr. 847; Bryant v. W. UZ Tel. Oo. 17 FED. REP. 825, and note, 826. »
-· n.
l