The farmers' union. (Memphis, Mo.) 1891-1895, 1892-02-25
AIMED AT THE FARMER
THEY SAY ANTi-OPTIoN LAWS
WOULD HURT HIM.
President Hamin and Other Chfcagoans
Attempt to Show that Pending Meas
urcs Would Dcprcss Prices of Grain and
Live Stock and Dcrange business.
Spectators Talk.

Spectators Talk.
Prcsidcn. HamiIl and four other MEM
bcrs of the Chicago Board Of Trade ap-
pcared fore the Senate Committee on
judiciary II protest against the legisla-
tion contemplated 10y the Hatch and
Washhurn anti-option bills. President
Hamill made a long address, and was
followed by Thomas A. Wright and
Michael Cudahy.
Speculative bodies, urged Mr. Ham
i'll, are necessary to adjust the rela-
! tions between the supply and demand Of
pro iucts. The advance in prices checks
consumption and stimulates production.
and the fall in price checks production
and increases consumption. There is
some price at which they are perfectly
adjusted. and this il termed prop
| cr price The opccula.or makes
the actual market value conform
to if. He canno. influence it, since the
| supply and den ard do that. bat he
| merely determines the actual market
price and makes ii coincide as nearly as
possible with the proper price. Fluctu-
atoms should toe as little as possible,
and In" t"ndcn " of speculation "a col-
dLc;e by the boards of trade is to keep
the market in a state of equilibrium
The movement of wheat last fall VS.
the dealers and "~,@-. ~-- rA.'"v'' "n'''"
| FOR delivery in the future at hic prices.
| The CT lers were filled, and by the time
the farmer was able TO deliver il the
| machinery of commerce was in motion,
| and ilte crop no.ed off easily at gooi
| prices. No g'ut ,nsued, and the sellers
| a. well aS the buyers were benefited.
/ The speculative supply, as third ele-
m,nt, prevents undue enhancement OF
prices. The spceuator is also an inn
portant fac,or in distribution. Buying
| in Il market relatively cheap and selling
| in a market relatively high prevents ac-
! emulation a some points and uEdlo
! depict ION al others, and this equali2Eg
| process helps distribution.
| Mr.. Hamiil continued that the bill
! would have the effect of prohibiting mer-
! chants from handling products in legiti.
mate channels If trade. While it would
allow the farmer Ia sell his products for
| future delivery, the mt reliant who bought
of him wo,ild bc prevented from selling
until the actual delivery was made.
| The result is" he continued. that
/ while the farmer has the naked right to
dispose of his properly, even before he
has raised it. he can really dispose Of
his VIII at only, and iii 10 the miller
alone. His corn, rye, and arley must
toe sold if sold for future delivery, to a
dealer who, under the provisions of the
bill, would be prohibited from disposin9
of such property until its actual deliv-
cry. II entirely eliminates all legiti-
mate competition in the pu.ch use fr, IN
the farmer of his products. for the reason
that the miller and maltster alone re-
,ra" Ennanferfh ffsc ri maies solely in
favor of the miller and maltst,r. and
creates a monopoly foc their advantage
10y driving out every other dealer and
warehous man.
Under the bill. said Mr.. Hamill. tho
packer Of hogs. now the only important
buyer in that line. would be prohibited
from contracting for future delivery II
pork products. As the rlsalt the packer
would be compelled TO insist upon
larger margin 10 cover the ad iitiolal
risk Of market Will, manufacturing.
This would tend to rcdace the price 10
the grower or farmer.
A. a final objection to the hill Mr..
Hamil urged that il would result in
ovcrtulniry and unscttling to the extent
of the total desttu .tion of long and we'll
understood usa-cs in the handling OF
agricultural products. The restriction
placed upon the business of buying an
selling would prevent men from engag.
ing IN legitimate tra1,.
Thomas A. Wright followed in a Ion :
argument in which he cited the legal
phases of the situation and quoted from
various 4. c;sions To show that contracts
such as were made on boards of trade
were |. gitimate and recognized as such
by the courts. In closing he claimed
that the effects of the passage Of the
law proposed would toe to drive capital
out of the business of handling agr.-
cultural products. To prohibit futures
would h. to remove the only insurance
afforded the dealers. He thought the
measure was intended solely for the
benefit of the hig millers. Scnat or
Washburn, the author. who was in tl :
milling business himself. made no OBJ
lection to this intimation.
Mr.. Wright produced some statisticl
recently gathered 10y :. X. 7. Prime. oi
Dwight. showing that many farmers na
well as millers and grain merchant
throughout Illinois. Iowa and Minnesota
were opposed 10 the anti-cption bills. II
was also shown that selling future dc.
livery was practice coming into vogue
in many agricultural districts, and the
farmers We're taking the same adval'
tagcs as the grain dealers to insure
themselves against loss by selling fol
delivery ahead.
---------------------
The Salvation Army.