Wallace v. Cutten
Encyclopedia
Wallace v. Cutten, 298 U.S. 229
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...

 (1936), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...

 held that the authority of the United States Secretary of Agriculture
United States Secretary of Agriculture
The United States Secretary of Agriculture is the head of the United States Department of Agriculture. The current secretary is Tom Vilsack, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on 20 January 2009. The position carries similar responsibilities to those of agriculture ministers in other...

 under the Grain Futures Act
Grain Futures Act
The Grain Futures Act , is a United States federal law enacted September 21, 1922 involving the regulation of trading in certain commodity futures, and causing the establishment of the Grain Futures Administration, a predecessor organization to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.The bill that...

 (298 U.S. 229, 235) was limited to prevent continued violation of the act, not past violations.

Facts of the case

The Secretary of Agriculture served a complaint upon the Respondent, Arthur W. Cutten
Arthur W. Cutten
Arthur William Cutten was an Canadian-born businessman who gained great wealth and prominence as a commodity trader in the United States. He was called to appear before the Banking and Currency Committee in regard to the causes of the Wall Street Crash of 1929...

 on April 11, 1934 alleging that Cutten had not reported his net position in futures that he controlled to the Grain Futures Administration when he had commitments in excess of 500,000 bushels. The complaint also alleged that he conspired with other grain firms to hide his net position from the Grain Futures Administration, and he reported false information to the Administration.

Prior history

Cutten was barred from trade for two years after a hearing before a commission composed of the Secretary of Agriculture, Attorney General, and Secretary of Commerce. Cutten successfully appealed his claim that the sanctions could not be applied to behavior that had ceased at the time of the hearing to the Seventh Circuit, and the court set aside the prior judgment. The government appealed the verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Decision of the Court

The Court held that Section 6(b) of the Grain Futures Act could only be applied to ongoing activity, not activity that had ceased at the time of trial. The government argued that 6(b) had to apply retroactively due to the nature of ongoing investigations into reporting irregularities. The Respondent argued that the government had other remedies, so even if 6(b) were strictly construed, it would not limit the government's ability regulate the Respondent's ability to trade in grain futures. The Court declined to discuss any other possible remedies the government may have had, including section 9, and instead constructed 6(b) strictly. The Seventh Circuit decision was affirmed.

See also

The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK