Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1891-10-30
Teo Flexible Currency.

One Of the objects Of the Sub
Treasury bill Is 10 ALLOW farmers to
store their grain 10 await . higher
market. The effect might be to
store as much Of each years crop as
will not have to he used, immiedi-
ately after harvest, which would in
crease the volume Of money very
suddenly in the amount Of so per
cent. Of the crop, Tor nearly all the
crop would be stored-when it had
lett the hands Of the producer and
had come into the possession Vi the
Spectator, and grains would then
pc scarce, consequently higl.-priced.
The available crops would in time
be consumed and the stored crops
put on the market. This would con-
tract the currency, the bill requiring
the s~ub-treasury notes to be destroy.
ed, and thus make the price Of pro-
ducts very low, they Being plenty
and money carce The f%iuctuation
between the high and the low price
Of any product in any given year,
according to statistics, is about Is
per cent. now, then it would, doubt.
less, be much greater. A producer
might therefore store his product
and receive 50 per cent. Of it's value
in sub-treasury notes, based on the
then prevailing market in the Ma
ton; but those 80 per cent. would
in all probability amount to more
money than 100 per cent. Of the
low market would, for in redeeming
you return the original 80 per cent.
regardless Of the market. When
most Of the grain is stored the mar
ket would be high, as it is now
when most Of the grain is marketed;
when the grain would go on the
market, prices would be as they are
now after harvest, low. In such
cases it would be more profitable to
keep the so per cent. already in ones
possession than to redeem, only to
sell at a lower price. The holder
might better have sold in the first
place, even at a lower than the stor-
ing price. In addition to this, the
bill would make speculation in pro-
ducts far easier and more profitable,
for the poor man needs, not 80 per
cent. of the value of his crop, but
100 per cent. thereof as soon ns
available, and would therefore sell
rather than store, as soon as his
crop is harvested. The specu-
lator would buy it and store it, us.
ing only 20 per cent. of his own
money TO do it with-the other 80
he gets from the government! And
even if the poor man stored insead
Of selling and the market went in
his favor, what evidence have we
that he has not used up his 80 per
cent and has nothing with which to
redeem his grain? Would not the
holder of his money, the Spectator,
redeem his crop, of whose actual val
lie he (the poor man) has only real
lied 80 per cent, whenever it be.
came profitable for him to do SO?
The independents are Justly indig-
nant over the present dealing in "fu-
tures", but this would be worse
specializing ~ the poor mans mis-
fortune with government money.
Is it the consumer OF liquors or
one who deals in them or produces
them in small quantities that prof.
its by the storing Of liquors, which
is cited as an argument in favor Of
this bill by the Independents, or is
it the brewing and distilling syndi-
Gates? Would it not be the same
with the grain from which the liq-
uor is made, that the elevator COM
panies aud boards OF trade would
profit and the poor man suffer?
II. A. Loucks says hat the elec-
ton Of Smith near another vote
Cor this bill; are you going to help
to elect him?