been repealed by implication by the treaty or convention of 1889, and that the respondent, therefore, cannot obtain any benefit from them. We see no fair or reasonable ground upon which to base the claim of repeal. Repeals by implication are never favored, and a later treaty will not be regarded as repealing an earlier statute by implication, unless the two are absolutely incompatible and the statute cannot be enforced without antagonizing the treaty. United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U. S. 213. If both can exist the repeal by implication will not be adjudged. These sections are not incompatible with the treaty or in any way inconsistent therewith. We find nothing in the treaty which provides that a person shall be surrendered for one offense and then that he may be punished for another, such as is the case here. The most that can be asserted is that an inference to that effect perhaps might be drawn from the absence in article III, of positive language preventing such punishment. But that slight and doubtful inference, resting on such an insufficient foundation,. is inadequate to overcome the positive provisions of the statute and the otherwise general scope of both treaties, which are inconsistent with the existence of such right.

It is urged that the construction contended for by the respondent is exceedingly technical and tends to the escape of criminals on refined subtleties of statutory construction, and should not, therefore, be adopted. While the escape of criminals is, of course, to be very greatly deprecated, it is still most important that a treaty of this nature between sovereignties should be construed in accordance with the highest good faith, and that it should not be sought by doubtful construction of some of its provisions to obtain the extradition of a person for one offense and then punish him for another and different offense. Especially should this be the case where the Government surrendering the person has refused to make the surrender for the other offense on the ground that such offense was not one covered by the treaty.

Our attention has been directed to various other treaties VOL. CCV-21

between this Government and other nations, where provision is expressly made in regard to punishment. They frequently provide that no person shall be triable or tried "or be punished" for any other offense than that for which he was delivered up, until he has had an opportunity of returning to the country from which he was surrendered. But because in some of the treaties the words "or be punished" are contained we are not required to hold that in the case before us the absence of those words permits such punishment, when that construction is, as we have said, contrary to the manifest meaning of the whole treaty, and also violates the statutes above cited. The order of the Circuit Court is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE MOODY did not sit in the case and took no part in its decision.

HUNT v. NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.

No. 314. Submitted March 4, 1907.-Decided April 8, 1907.

Quotations of prices on an exchange, collected by the exchange, are property and entitled to the protection of the law, and the exchange has the right to keep them to itself or have them distributed under conditions established by it. Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 198 U. S. 236.

In a suit brought by an exchange to enjoin defendant from receiving quotations from the telegraph company to which it has given the right to distribute them, and from using the same, the value involved is not merely the amount which defendant pays the telegraph company, but the right of the exchange to keep the control of the quotations and protect itself from competition which is the object of the suit; and if the testimony shows, as it does in this case, that such right is worth more than $2,000, the Circuit Court has jurisdiction, so far as amount is concerned; and when the plea presents such an issue the burden is on appellant to show that the amount involved is less than the jurisdictional amount.

205 U. S.

Statement of the Case.

The fact that defendant has, in another action in the state court, and to which the exchange was not a party, obtained an injunction against the telegraph company, enjoining it from ceasing to deliver the quotations, does not deprive the Circuit Court of jurisdiction of the suit by the exchange under § 720, Rev. Stat., the parties and the purpose not being the same.

144 Fed. Rep. 511, affirmed.

THIS is a bill in equity brought by the New York Cotton Exchange, a New York corporation, against appellant, a citizen of Tennessee, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee, to enjoin him from receiving and using the quotations of sales made upon the Exchange. The case is here on questions of jurisdiction, and only a synopsis of the principal facts alleged is necessary.

The Exchange is a private corporation under the laws of New York, with 450 members, and owns in the city of New York a building for the use of its members, and conducts therein on every business day cotton sales for present and future delivery, the transfers aggregating many million bales of cotton annually. The purchases and sales for future delivery are permitted to be made and are made only during market hours and by open viva voce bidding, and the knowledge of the prices thus made has become a species of property of such value that Telegraph Companies pay large sums of money to the Exchange for the privilege of receiving instantaneously the quotations and distributing the same to customers and many persons in the United States who are engaged in the cotton commission business. Such persons are willing to pay and do pay the Telegraph Companies therefor, and the Exchange realizes from the distribution of the quotations through the Telegraph Companies large sums of money annually. The quotations are such peculiar kind of property that their value depends upon the power of the Exchange to confine the transmission and distribution thereof to such Telegraph Companies and their distributing agencies as will contract therefor with the Exchange, and, that, if any person or corporation is permitted to promptly acquire the quotations surreptitiously or

by theft, or without paying the Exchange therefor, such person or corporation can promptly give the same to numerous other persons, and the Telegraph Companies contracting with the Exchange would thus be put at a disadvantage in competition with such persons so obtaining the quotations without paying for them, and would thereby be deterred from continuing to pay the Exchange the prices provided in the contracts with the Telegraph Companies. The manner of collecting and distributing the quotations is detailed, and yearly the cost to the Exchange, it is alleged, is $4,500. Prior to 1893 the Exchange permitted the Telegraph Companies to gather the quotations through their own employés upon the floor of the Exchange building, and to distribute them without any effective restrictions upon the persons entitled thereto, with the result that many persons used the same in conducting so-called “bucket shops," by reason thereof the bucket shop evil assumed such large proportions and became so serious as to materially affect the legitimate transactions upon the floor of the Exchange, and its members were deprived of many customers. The Exchange therefore found it necessary to terminate such right or license of the Telegraph Companies, and to that end made contracts with them. The contracts are attached to the bill. It is enough to say of them that under them the companies receive the quotations under the condition not to furnish them to any persons, firms or corporations who, or which, may be directly or indirectly engaged in the promotion or maintenance of "bucket shops "or other places where such continuous quotations are used as a basis for bets or other illegal contracts based upon fluctuations of the prices of cotton dealt in on the Exchange. Nor shall the companies directly or indirectly furnish the quotations to any person, firm or corporation, whether members of the Exchange or not, until such person, firm or corporation shall have submitted an application in writing to the Exchange in such form as it shall provide, and until it has approved of the application. The Exchange has power to revoke its approval. In such event the companies shall cease

to furnish the quotations, and if they have installed tickers or wires in the office or place of business of such person, firm or corporation they shall immediately remove the same. This, however, they are not required to do, "or to discontinue service furnished by any other means, which are under restraint by injunctions of the courts during the pendency of the injunction." In case of an application once approved and afterwards disapproved by the Exchange and a suit be commenced against the companies on account of the continuance of the quotations, the Exchange shall defend such suit at its expense and pay all fines, penalties, etc., to which the companies may be subject. In cases where an application has not been approved by the Exchange suits against the companies for the refusal to furnish the quotations shall be defended at the expense of the companies, which shall use diligent efforts to secure the removal of injunctions. If the suit shall be brought against the Exchange it shall defend at its own cost. For the purpose of protecting the companies against the use of quotations originating on the Exchange by parties not entitled to them the companies may prosecute suits in their own name or that of the Exchange to prevent or stop such competitive use.

The Western Union Telegraph Company has to pay the Exchange for the quotations $13,584 per annum in equal installments of $1,132 at the close of each month. The form of the application is attached to the contract.

It is alleged that all persons receiving the quotations have made applications in the form set out, except in a few instances where persons who were receiving quotations from the companies prior to the execution of the contracts have since the execution thereof secured temporary injunctions (the Exchange not being a party to the suits) to enjoin the companies from withholding or withdrawing the quotations on the ground that such persons were not required to sign such applications or secure the approval of the Exchange.

The defendant, Clarence P. Hunt (appellant), has not made application to either of the companies or the Exchange, nor