Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 219 U.S. power of the State, there is a limit to the exercise of that power. In the end the court must decide the question. Mugler v. Kansas City, 123 U. S. 623, 661; State v. Tie Co., 181 Missouri, 536, 559; State v. Cantwell, 179 Missouri, 245, 263; State v. Loomis, 115 Missouri, 307, 316. There must be some reasonable grounds for the legislative interference, or it cannot be justified. Bonnett v. Vallier, 136 Wisconsin, 193, 203; State v. Redmon, 134 Wisconsin, 89, 110; Harding v. People, 160 Illinois, 459. On the ground of unreasonable interference with the liberty of contract, the courts have condemned legislative acts prescribing maximum hours of labor, Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45; making unlawful contracts of employment forbidding membership in labor unions, State v. Julow, 129 Missouri, 163; People v. Marcys, 189 N. Y. 257; Gillespie v. People, 188 Illinois, 176; Coffeyville B. & T. Co. v. Perry, 69 Kansas, 297; State v. Bateman, 7 Ohio N. P. 487; Zillmer v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wisconsin, 530; Goldfield Mines Co. v. Miners' Union, 159 Fed. Rep. 500; requiring stipulations in contracts for public work that none but union labor be employed, Atlanta v. Stein, 111 Georgia, 789; Marshall Co. v. Nashville, 109 Tennessee, 495; Adams v. Brennan, 177 Illinois, 194; Holden v. Alton, 179 Illinois, 318; Fiske v. People, 188 Illinois, 206; Furniture Co. v. Toole, 26 Montana, 22; Lewis v. Board of Education, 139 Michigan, 306; Rodgers v. Coler, 166 N. Y. 1, 59; making it criminal to discharge an employé because he is a member of a labor organization, Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161; requiring contractors to pay tertain minimum wages, Street v. Electrical Supply Co., 160 Indiana, 338; State v. Norton, 5 Ohio N. P. 183; regulating the time of payment of wages in defiance of contract, Leep v. Railway Co., 58 Arkansas, 407; Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 Illinois, 66; Railway Co. v. Wilson (Tex.), 19 S. W. Rep. 910; Republic I. & S. Co. v. State, 160 Indiana, 379; Commonwealth v. 219 U.S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. Isenburg, 4 Pa. Dist. R. 579; Bauer v. Reynolds, 3 Pa. Dist. R. 502; prohibiting payment of laborers otherwise than in money, State v. Loomis, 115 Missouri, 307; State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179; Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. St. 431; State v. Hann, 61 Kansas, 146; Jordan v. State, 51 Tex. Crim. 531; Avent Coal Co. v. Commonwealth, 96 Kentucky, 218; prohibiting mine owners from dealing in supplies, provisions, etc., Froer v. People, 141 Illinois, 171; forbidding sale of supplies to employés at greater price than to others, State v. Fire Creek Co., 33 W. Va. 118; forbidding deduction of wages because of defective work, Commonwealth v. Perry, 155 Massachusetts, 117; or for any reason except for actual cash advanced, Kellyville Coal Co. v. Harrier, 207 Illinois, 624; requiring employers to give discharged employés written reasons for discharge, Wallace v. Railway Co., 94 Georgia, 732; New York Ry. Co. v. Schaffer, 65 Oh. St. 414; requiring a day's labor to consist of eight hours, Low v. Rees Printing Co., 41 Nebraska, 127; requiring sleeping car companies, upon request of occupant of lower berth, to raise upper berth if not occupied, State v. Redmon, 134 Wisconsin, 89, 110; requiring all contractors for erection of buildings to give bond for benefit of material men, Montague & Co. v. Furness, 145 California, 205; forbidding cigar making in tenement houses, In re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98; regulating weight of loaves of bread, Buffalo v. Collins Baking Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 432; giving state board power to refuse or grant nurseryman's license as it might think applicant financially responsible or not, Hawley v. Nelson (S. D.), 115 N. W. Rep. 93; requiring certain bonds to be secured by surety companies as sureties, McKell v. Robins, 71 Ohio, 273; prohibiting location of laundry without consent of certain property owners, Ex parte Sing Lee, 96 California, 354; Laundry Ordinance Case, 13 Fed. Rep. 229; or unless permitted by board of supervisors, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 373; requiring production of cerVOL. CCXIX-18 Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 219 U.S. tificate showing payment of all taxes due before recording conveyance of real estate, Baldwin v. Moore, 7 Washington, 173; forbidding sale of groceries and provisions in same store where dry goods, clothing or drugs are sold, Chicago v. Nitcher, 183 Illinois, 104; making gift of premium stamps with purchase a crime, Appel v. Zimmermann, 102 App. Div. (N. Y.) 103; Madden v. Dycker, 72 App. Div. (N. Y.) 308; prohibiting selling of any article upon inducement of a premium, People v. Gillison, 109 N. Y. 397; requiring mine owners to provide scales for weighing coal and to make the weight of coal the basis of wages, Millett v. People, 117 Illinois, 294; In re House Bill No. 203, 21 Colorado, 27; requiring payment for coal mined to be based on coal before screened, Ramsey v. People, 142 Illinois, 380; Re Preston, 63 Oh. St. 428; Whitebreast Fuel Co. v. People, 175 Illinois, 51; making it criminal to offer real estate for sale without written authority, Fisher Co. v. Woods, 187 N. Y. 90; putting onerous restrictions upon keeping of private asylums for insane, Ex parte Whitwell, 98 California, 73. The Board of Trade was a voluntary association of great service to the public and the alleged rule was but a reasonable provision in a written contract between plaintiff in error and others. Tompkins v. Saffrey, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 213, 228; Moffatt v. Kansas City Board of Trade, 111 S. W. Rep. 894, 900; Hopkins v. United States, 171 U. S. 578, 597; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509; Greer v. Stoller, 77 Fed. Rep. 1; The Law and Customs of the Stock Exchange by Melsheimer and Gardner (3d Ed., London, 1891), 98; Clark v. Foss, 7 Biss. 547, 555; Bisbee and Simon's Exchanges, Preface VI. The fact that a membership fee is charged, makes no difference as to the rights of the parties. The association owns no property, there is a mere membership, the fee being paid as an aid to carry the expense of the organization. The very definition of an exchange excludes the 219 U. S. Argument for Defendant in Error. idea of having property interests. White v. Brownell, 2 Daly, 329; Leech v. Harris, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 571, 575; In re Haebler, 149 N. Y. 414, 428; American Com. Co. v. Chicago Live Stock Exchange, 143 Illinois, 210, 226; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 749; Seymour v. Bridge, 14 Q. B. Div. 460, 465; Belton v. Hatch, 109 N. Y. 593, 596; Commercial Telegraph Co. v. Smith, 47 Hun, 494, 505; Board of Trade v. Nelson, 162 Illinois, 431, 438; People v. New York Commercial Association, 18 Abb. Pr. 271, 279; Vaughn v. Herndon, 91 Tennessee, 64; Evans v. Chamber of Commerce, 86 Minnesota, 448; People v. Chicago Board of Trade, 80 Illinois, 134; Metropolitan Grain Exchange v. Board of Trade, 15 Fed. Rep. 847. There is a vast difference between the rights of a member of a voluntary, unincorporated institution and those of a shareholder of a corporation. 1 Thompson on Corporations, § 846; Bacon on Benefit Societies, § 89; Niblack on Benefit Societies, §§ 22, 30, 73; Kehenbeck v. Logeman, 10 Daly (N. Y.), 447. Mr. Elliott W. Major, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, with whom Mr. John M. Atkinson was on the brief, for defendant in error: The legislature has the right to enact laws preventing and abolishing self-imposed rules of boards of trade which have been adopted as to weights and measures; such legislation is within the police power of the State. The State can abolish any custom or usage among merchants or others as to what shall constitute the unit of weight. Pittsburg Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590. The statute is leveled at rule 18, adopted by the Board of Trade, whereby it arbitrarily deducts from every car of grain one hundred pounds of its weight. The deduction of the one hundred pounds, as made by the rule, is a fraud or trespass upon the rights of others. It is the duty of the State to prevent same, because the Argument for Defendant in Error. 219 U. S. action to recover is not adequate on account of the frequency and multiplicity of the acts. The law is in the interest of fair dealing and common honesty. It prevents the taking of the property of the citizen by arbitrary rule without that "due process of law" about which plaintiff in error has said so much. House v. Mayes, 227 Missouri, 641; McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 550; Tiedeman, Police Power, § 89. The public has such an interest in and is so affected by the dealing of boards of trade, that the legislature can control same. Making the deduction of any amount from the actual weight of certain commodities by reason of any custom or rule of a board of trade a misdemeanor, as provided in the Missouri statute, is a valid exercise of the police power of the State. The police power of a State embraces regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity, as well as those to promote public health, morals or safety; it is not confined to the expression of what is offensive, disorderly or unsanitary, but extends to what is for the greatest welfare of the State. 30 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d Ed.), 451; People v. Wagner, 86 Michigan, 599; State v. Wilson, 61 Kansas, 32; Pittsburg Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517; Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391; Cooley on Const. Lim. (6th Ed.), 744; Green v. Moffitt, 22 Missouri, 529; Evans v. Myers, 25 Pa. St. 114; Noble v. Durrell, 3 T. R. 271; St. Cross v. Howard, 6 T. R. 338; Mayes v. Jennings, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 102; Harris v. Rutledge, 19 Iowa, 388; Tiedeman's Police Power, § 89; 1 Bishop's New Criminal Law, § 234; McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 546, 550; Williams v. Arkansas, 217 U. S. 79; New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 105; Thurlow v. Massachusetts, 5 How. 628; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 380; Bacon v. Walker, 204 |