We have been strongly urged to advise the prohibition or limitation of short sales, not only on the theory that it is wrong to agree to sell that what one does not possess, but that such sales reduce the market price of the securities involved. We do not think that it is wrong to agree to sell something that one does not now possess, but expects to obtain later. Contracts and agreements to sell, and deliver in the future, property which one does not possess at the time of the contract, are common in all kinds of business. The man who has “sold short” must some day buy in order to return the stock which he has borrowed to make the short sale. Short sellings endeavor to select times when prices seem high in order to sell, and times when prices seem low in order to buy, their action in both cases serving to lessen advances and diminish declines of price. In other words, short selling tends to produce steadiness in prices, which is an advantage to the community. No other means of restraining unwarranted marking up and down of prices has been suggested to us. The legislation of the State of New York on the subject of short selling is significant. In 1812 the Legislature passed a law declaring all contracts for the sale of stocks and bonds void, unless the seller at the time was the actual owner or assignee thereof or authorized by such owner or assignee to sell the same. In 1858 this act was repealed by a statute now in force, which reads as follows: “An agreement for the purchase, sale, transfer, or delivery of a certificate or other evidence of debt, issued by the United States or by any State, or municipal or other corporation, or any share or interest in the stock of any bank, corporation or joint-stock association, incorporated or organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, is not void, or voidable, because the vendor, at the time of making such contract, is not the owner or possessor of the certificate, or certificates, or other evidence of debt, share or interest.” It has been urged that this statute “specifically legalizes stock gambling.” As a matter of fact, however, the law would be precisely the same if that statute were repealed, for it is the well-settled common law of this country, as established by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of the State courts, that all contracts, other than mere wagering contracts, for the future purchase or sale of securities or commodities are valid, whether the vendor is, or is not, at the time of making such contract, the owner or possessor of the securities or commodities involved, in the absence of a statute making such contracts illegal. So far as any of these transactions are mere wagering transactions, they are illegal, and not enforceable, as the law now stands.