710 ANNUAL. REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Fines imposed in cases involving game violations on national forests. 



UNITED STATES GRAIN STANDARDS ACT (39 Stat. 482). 



Consideration was given to the suspension and cancellation of a 

 number of licenses issued under the act. 



The evidence introduced at hearings in eight cases involving viola- 

 tions of section 5 of the act was examined. In six of these findings of 

 fact were prepared and published. Two of the cases were returned 

 to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics with the suggestion that 

 the facts relating thereto be not published. 



Reports of the bureau in six cases involving the violation of section 

 4 of the act were considered, and, together with forms of information 

 prepared, were referred to the Attorney General with recommenda- 

 tions that criminal proceedings be instituted. Five of the cases were 

 successfully concluded and the defendants fined in sums aggregating 

 $400. The remaining case is pending. 



Opinions were rendered on questions arising under the act and 

 assistance was given the bureau in drafting amendments to the regu- 

 lations promulgated thereunder. * 



THE GRAIN FUTURES ACT (42 Stat. 998). 



On September 21. 1922, Congress passed "the grain futures act," 

 the purpose of which, as expressed in its title, is the prevention of 

 obstructions and burdens upon interstate commerce in grain by regu- 

 lating transactions on grain futures exchanges. This act was passed 

 to take the place of ''the futures trading act" of August 24, 1921, 

 declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on May 15, 1922, in 

 Hill V. Wallace (259 U. S. 44). The futures trading act was based 

 upon the taxing power of Congress. The court held that it was not 

 passed for the purpose of raising revenue, but for the regulation of 

 the grain exchanges, and was therefore unconstitutional. 



The new act, in the drafting of which this office assisted, is based 

 upon the power of Congress over interstate commerce. In due time 

 suits were hied b}' the principal grain exchanges to test its constitu- 

 tionahty. The one filed by the 'Chicago Board of Trade was decided 

 by the Supreme Court on April 16, 1923. The com-t upheld the vahd- 

 itV of the act. The Government's answer, which was filed by the 

 United States attorney in the district court,- and a brief which the 

 Solicitor General of the United States filed as an appendix to his 

 brief before the Supreme Court, were prepared in this office in cooper- 

 ation with the attorne}- for the Packers and Stockyards Administra- 

 tion. The applications of the several grain exchanges dealing in 

 futures for designation as ''contract markets" under the act were 



