THE GRAIN EXCHANGE AGAIN 123 



given out were fixed by the Grain Exchange in what 

 was claimed to be open competition, the prosecution 

 intended to show that it was a gambling transaction 

 pure and simple, the price-fixing being nothing more 

 than the guess of the men who acted for their own gain. 



The trial lasted for a month, during which time a 

 great many witnesses were examined grain men and 

 farmers and the whole grain trade reviewed. The 

 array of legal talent for the defence was very imposing 

 and the case attracted much attention because, aside 

 from its interest to the grain trade and the farming 

 population, it promised to test the particular and some- 

 what obscure section of the Criminal Code under which 

 the indictment was laid. At one stage of the proceed- 

 ings the tension in court became so high and witnesses 

 so unwilling that upon reproval by the court regarding 

 his examination, leading counsel for the Grain Growers 

 picked up his bag and walked out in protest, willing to 

 risk punishment for the breach of etiquette rather than 

 remain. After the Grain Growers' executive and 

 counsel had conferred with the Government, however, 

 the Grain Growers' counsel was prevailed upon to 

 resume the case. 



The finding of the court did not come as much of a 

 surprise; for it was apparent before the trial ended 

 that the section of the Code was considered ambiguous 

 by the presiding Judge. The latter held that all 

 restraints suggested by the evidence were agreed to, 

 whether justifiably or not, aff pTftlffiflgp regulations and 

 before finding the defendants guilty these restraints 

 must appear to be " undne r " yonrdltiy to hla rflftfHnp 

 of the section. It was necessary to respect the right of 

 a particular trade or business or of a particular class 

 of traders to protect their property by regulations and 



