For much of the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, courts in the United States had struggled to find a clear distinction between legitimate futures trading and gambling. Their efforts were complicated and sometimes contradictory (Swan 2000). However, a test that commanded wide agreement was whether or not a futures contract could be settled by physical delivery of the underlying commodity, for example grain. … If a futures contract could be settled by delivery of the underlying asset, courts generally ruled that it was legal and enforceable. If it could not if the contract could be settled only in cash it was in general held to constitute a wager.' Hence, as noted in chapter 1, even if delivery was seldom demanded, it had to be possible. If it was not, a futures contract was against the law of Illinois and of any other state in which gambling was prohibited.

Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, loc. 639