Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1892-12-21
THE ANTI-opTIoN BILL.

Mr. Daniels Presents n Petition,
which 10 Referred with Others to
the Committee on Agriculture-1fr.
Palmer Explains and Defends HIS
Objections.
| WASHINGTON, Dec. 20.-In the senate to.
day Mr.. Daniels said that he had received
and been requested to present to the SEN
| ate petition cent to him from st. Louis.
He did not know why he should have been
asked to present 1t, except perhaps 1t was
because the first name to 1t was that of q
citizen of Massachusetts,. ALL the other
signers were citizens of Minnesota, Mis-
souri, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky,
Arkansas and Texas. It stated that after
years of robbery and oppression the cry of
s'stop thief" was raised by the authors and
supporters of the Washburne- Hatch anti
options bill; that that bill was supposed to
originate in the counting room of the
combine" and In the very hsatglare of
the robbery; that experience had taught
them to beware of the Greeks even when
bearing gifts; and asking that committee
be appointed to visit Minneapolis and st.
| oQl uut OIL othcI HlhCCs "AClC tuC Coh-
bine existed between elevators, mills and
railroads, and that in the meantime action
on the anti-options bill be suspended.
Mr.. Washburne, rep, of Minnesota. re-
marked that million of such petitions
had been circulated, all of them originat-
ing in the Chicago board of trade. This
petition should 60 to the COMMITTEES on
agriculture, where all that rubbish had
gone.
Mr.. Dawes suggested that perhaps these
petitions represented an uprising of the
titions on the other side were said to have
been manufactured in Washington.
The petition was referred to the COM
mittee on agriculture, as were also numer-
GUS other like petitions presented by sem
ators on both sides Of the chamber.
The house concurrent resolution for the
holiday recess from Thursday, December
%, to Wednesday, January 4, was also re-
ported back favorsbly, but on objection of
Mr.. Sherman, rep, of Ohio, 1t was laid
over without action.
The house amendment to the senate bill
authorizing the sale of the Fort Miffiin reser-
walton, in Delaware, was concurred in and
then the senate proceeded to executive
business.
When the doors were reopened the
anti-option bill was taken up and
Mr.. Palmer addressed the senate,
explaining and defending his objections to
the bill. Tho clauses against purchases of
options were, he said, less satisfactory
than the statute of Illinois on that sub
ject. Dealings in options were prohibited
by the laws of Illinois, and were punished
by adequate fines and penalties. He ar
gued that the effect of the proposed bill
was to give collectors of internal revenue
absolute authority over all contracts made
by any person for the sale and future de-
livery of property. It gave q most extern
sive and alarming jurisdiction to
these collectors. 1t gave them su-
thority to look into the business
of every man in the country-a power
heretofore only permitted under very lin
tied and restricted Observation-Disclosures
revenue purposes. He had supposed that
no party was prepared to say that the
federal government could interfere in the
exercise of the police powers In the states.
No senator, he believed, would claim con-
gress possessed power to prohibit dealings
in options or futures in the states. The
attempt, however, was but thinly dis
guised in the bill to thrust the jurisdic-
ton of the federal government into the
states to define and punish crimes. The
senator who called the bill a revenue
measure knew the term was a misnomer.