Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-02-05
FUTURES AND "PRIvILecEs."
Protests From Business Men Against Anti
Option Bill.

Protests From Business-M Men Against Anti
Option Bill.
fBy telegraph to the D'spatch.l
WASHINGTON, d. c.. February 4.-The
House Committee on Agriculture. which
is now considering several measures re-
stricting or prohibiting the dealing in OPP
tions on agricultural products. to-day re-
ceived protest against the passage of the
Washburn bill relating to that subject
from the New Orleans Cotton Exchange.
The document makes distinction be-
tween futures" which it defends as
legitimate contracts. and "options," COM
monty known as puts and calls" which
are characterized as nothing more nor
less than wagers. 1t is further as
serted that, SO far from depre-
eating values, the existence of these
futures or contracts for future delivery,
serve rather as q restraint TO serious DO,
clines in times of depression. tabuated
statement is given OF the variations OF
prices In the cotton market before and
after the establishment of the future"
system in 1871, with the purpose OF sub
stantiating this allegation. The document
expresses the opinion of the board to the
effect that prices can neither be perma-
nantly lowered nor advanced by dealings
in contracts for future delivery.
A long argument is made to demonstrate
the lmpracticability of dispensing with the
present system of dealing and of requiring
the planter of cotton to sell directly TO the
spinner. owing to the impossibllity of fore
seeing the exact amount and quality of the
growth on each plantation, and the needs
of the spinner. 1t is predicted that the
passage of the bill would cause the New
York and New Orleans cotton exchanges
to cease existence, and would transfer
their business to Europe, where prices
would be manipulated to the misfortune OF
the planter.
The committee to-day continued its
hearing of delegations OF businessmen
interested in the subject OF these bills.
Northwest grain-men had the floor IN
imposition to the bills, and their views
and arguments are substantially similar to
| III )se stated in the foregoing synopsis OF the
New Orleans cotton-men's protest. some
| thing was said however, In defence OF the
trade in "privileges quits and calls), as
we'll az of dealing in futures" as dis
| tinct from each other.
A. j. Sawyer. one of the largest elevator
men in Minneapolis, explained the system
| of marketing grain. He said he would
make no attack on the bill; but before the
| present method OF handling grain was de-
| stroyed he would ask the committee 10
devise some substitute by which 1t could
| be better handled. He traced the method
of handling wheat in the Northwest. The
| farmers sent the wheat to the elevators
| from the thresher. and the buyers
had to advance the money. The frsLt
| day wheat came in $l50,00O would
| be absorbed. The railroads and the farm
ers compelled the eleyator-men to be ready
| to receive the offerings. They had to bor-
row the money. and, as the cars could not
| pe had immediately, il was some days at
least before they could get it TO Duluth.
| When this wheat was received efforts were
made to sell it to the millers In Buffalo,
| Minneapolis. or abroad. They could not
take all the daily receipts. and so the ele-
yator-men went INTO the markets and
| bought options to cover themselves from
| loss. He would not do the business unless
| he could protect himself by means OF these
| options or in some other way; there
would be too much risk. The privilege
purchased was his insurance from loss by
| fluctuations in prices.
| Mr.. Sawyer appealed to the COMMITTEES
not to knock away the under-pinning by
which wheat merchants like himself pro-
tected themselves from loss without giving
them In Its place something equally as
good