New-York tribune., 1882-04-12
CORNERS And Their CURE.

The appointment or legislative cohHii''O0
to investigate "corners" i'll grain and provi-
sions has been derded in some quarters as
sheer waste of public money. Yet there Is
scarcely any other subject that better deserves
legislative examination. Regarding the expe-
diency of some legislation to regulate specua"
ton in the prime neccssaries Of life, there is
not much difference of opinion, provided any
legislation of that character can be made eiiec-
tive without doing more harm than good. The
whole country has suffered within the past
year, and suffered seriously in all It's great
interests because of the excessive speculation
in products Nobody denies the fact. Whlle
it is urged that speculation, within proper
limits. has its beneficial uses, there are very
few who will deny that its excess has done
great mischief The cndeavor to ascertain
whether it can be wisely and safely restrained
by law does not deserve contempt, but Is emil
nently proper and praiscworthy.
The presumption of course, is greatly against
the success of legislation in that direction.
The experiment has been tried many times.
1t has never resulted in any public benefit.
In no other State has the evil OF improper
speculation in products been more keenly felt,
or its nature moro clearly understood, than III
Illinois, and it might have been supposed that
the legislation of that State would reach the
difficulty, if any could. But the Illinois law
has only served to cause barren litigation.
Generally, acts passed have been such that
public opinion has not sustained them, and IN
the face of public opinion their enforcement has
been impracticable. In most instances, the
law-making power has failed to distinguish
between that speculation which is sometimes
useful and that which is always and necessarily
harmful.
If the committee divests itself of the cant
and the prejudice of the street, it will find that
corner is always and necessarily the fault
of the seller Any man has right to buy all
the wheat in the country if he can. Because
that is always impossible the attempt is pretty
sure to result in disaster, and if made can do
not much harm except to him who makes it.
But the instant somebody sells something that
does not belong to him, the situation changes.
He is at the mercy of those who own what he
has sold. If agreed, they can make him pay
the last cent he las i'll the world, and it would
serve him right. He had no business to be
selling the property OF other people. But
laundering laws and commercial customs and
rules framed on purpose to promote gambling,
have taken just the opposite view OF the
matter. They have treated the man who has
sold the property of others as an innocent vic
TIM and the owners who refuse to part with
their property as band of thieves. Public
instinct never sustains laws that are at bottom
unjust. Hence legislation of this sort has
never been found effective. 1t starts on the
false assumption that man has right to sell
what does not belong to him.
The Illinois legislation erred in the opposite
direction. 1t went on the theory that any and
all contracts for future delivery were wrong.
But there is not the slightest harm to any per-
son on earth in an agreement by man who
owns property to transfer that property to
somebody else at future time. On the con-
trary such contracts have been found of the
greatest public utility. The cotton manufac-
turer can engage the planter TO deliver his
cotton as the mill may need il, and thus place
thousands of operatives beyond the reach of
disaster in consequence of fluctuations in the
market. The miller can make similar contracts
for grain, and the packer for hogs, and the
railroad builder for iron or steel rails and
locomotives. But the whole case changes when
the man who sells does not own the property
sold, but takes his chances of getting it from
protecting industry against risk, exposes it to
new and extraordinary perlls
| The root of the whole matter is in the sale of
property by men who do not own it, Persons
who want q thing have the right to buy it,
either on the spot or deliverable in the future.
They have right to buy all they can get, and
if ANYBODY peases to sell what he does not
own, q corner necessarily comes. though the
buyers may know nothing of it. Whether
they DO or not, their right to buy cannot be
denied the question is whether any man has
a right to sell what he does not own 1t is
true, the customs of commerce are such that no
deceit or fraud is necessarily involved in such a
sale But the root of the whole matter is the
question whether the customs of commerce
ought to tolerate a sale by one man of prop
erty which belongs to another man. Aud the
ouestiOn for the Legislature is whether, with
out prejudice to legitimate business people can
be legally prevented from selling what does
not belong to them. If that is done, corners"
can never arise, and speculation will be con-
fined within comparatively safe limits. But
unless it is practicable and wise to prevent
sales of this precise character, ii is sheer folly
to meddle with the incidental evils of specula-
ton which flow from them. Corners are
simply inevitable if people sell what does not
belong to them. All the other evils and per-
nicious consequences of speculation in products
are utterly beyond the power of legislation, if
the law permits man to sell what does not
belong to him.