The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-08-02
THE ANrI.oPTIoN BILL.

hu, ~. .ball none the less continue the dis
ousson of IL now while.it Is fresh In mems
minds.
The hill a. VIC explained few days
back. aims ~ preventing future safes OK
fo,r, nroducts where the seller is not at the
,;r,o o,yner OF the articles to be disposed or
uanv If our agricultural friends think these
transactions fix the prices at which their
commodities are to be sold, which We THINK
a very great error on their part, but 1t is an
error Of which we have no hope Of convinc-
-, than. We therefore shall consider an
obiectiou TO the bill which we feel sure
honest-mindcd farmers will be as ready TO
weld 10 when they understand it as any
other men.
II the transactions in futures which the
bill seeks to end are between citizens OF dii-
fereut States some theory might possibly DO
evolved which would give to Congress
power under the Constitution to iegisiate
against them as a measure in the nature OF
regulation of commerce between the
States. But the transactions aimed al
occur in the main between citizens OF the
same State. Almost all of them take place on
the produce exchanges of New YORK Ohl-
cago. New Orleans and few other Cities
where both seller and buyer are brokers
who live in the same city and both are cit-
liens of the same State. 1t is therefore
contracts TO be made between TWO citizens
of the same State which Congress aims at
preventing.
Now. every farmer knows that If he de-
sres TO swap horses with neghbor on an
adjoining farm the Congress of the United
States has nothing whatever to do with
the transaction and it ought not to
have anything to do with It, Mat
tiers of that sort between neighbors are
to be governed by the local laws made by
those neighbors, and the moment the night
of the citizen 10 control his local affairs IS
surrendered 10 q central law making power
the freedom of the individual and the lib
erty of the citizen is gone and q central des-
potism is established Every farmer, then
knows that Congress has no power under
our Constitution of Government to NEEDLE
with the contracts that neighbors choose 10
make with each other and he knows that
Congress ought not to have any such
power and he should never consent
to giving Congress any such power.
Congress knows this, too Just as
we'll as our farmer friends. and it
does not dare TO come out openly and aim
it's act at such transactions, because II
knows the courts would at once undo It's
act and declare it repugnsnt to our Consti-
tution and void. 1t therefore seeks to
accomplish the same result by very mean,
underhanded and contemplate trick. The
trainers of our Constitution, knowing that
the Government must have revenues upon
which TO live and conduct its operations,
conferred upon Congress power 10 levy and
collect taxes on ali property and business
in the United States. In abuse and
degradation Of this wholesome and
necessary power the Anti-Option bill
seeks to prevent the making Of fu-
ture contracts respecting farm products
by laying a tax on such transactions so
heavy that no man can pay the tax. IL
seeks therefore to use the power given Con-
gress to raise revenue in a way that makes
it impossible to raise any revenue at all out
of that subject. and TO accomplish an end
that Congress Is expressly forbidden by the
Constitution to compass in an open. ayowed
| and manly way.
Now We think our farmer friends will
| agree with us that this is thing that a de-
cent man should turn his back upon. If
our Constitution forbids Congress to pass
an act interfering with proposed bargain
and trade between two neighboring farm
ers, Congress should shun an attempt to
interfere with that bargain by pointing
towards it power conferred upon it for
purpose and design wholly diff erent. There
is no question here of sound political econ
Omy, the question is one which concerns
every day honesty and decency.
The question is very similar TO the one we
discussed few days back involved in the
tax of 10 per cont laid by Congress upon
the currency issues Of State banks. That
| is q tax laid, not to raise revenue. but TO
suppress the State bank currency in order
| that the national banks might have a mo-
| nopoly of the currency issuing privilege.
The constitutionality of this act was called
in question before the Supreme Court of the
United States in 1868 in the case Of Veazil
Bank V. Fenno, sth Wall, and the Court
sustained the act. This was. however. di-
rectly after the war. when the Constitution
received little reverence In its collisions
with the measures of the war. We will not
predict what the Supreme Court will do
when the Anti-Option bill comes before it,
hampered and embarrassed as it will be by
its previous decision in the bank tax case,
but we should not be surprised if it went to
the root Of the matter by overthrowing its
former bad doctrine and coming back to the
sound methods of the Constitution and Of
common sense and so mote it be.