Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-02-16
FIGHTING EACH INCH.
Boards of Trade From all Over the
Country Opposing the Proposed
BILL TO KNOCK OUT OPTIONS.
A Chicago Nan Argues That Future eelling
Aids Production.
PUTS AND CALLS OUT OF MARKET HOURS

| WASHINGTON, D. c., Feb. 15.-Tne Chi
cago Board of Trade had hearing before
the House Committee on Agriculture to-
day on the anti-option bill, and through its
President, Charles W. Hamill, opposed the
| passage of the bill, on the ground that it
prohibited dealings in cultures" The sys-
| tenn of future deliveries" Mr.. Hamill
said, grew up in response to demand from
| agriculturists for a continuous open mar
| ket, which was impossible without future
buying and selling. He believed the sale
| of futures was in the interest of producers.
Speculation, in his opinion, had a tendency
| to sustain values. If man were pro-
hibited from buying for future delivery a
great stimulus to buying would be taken
| away.
In answer to Mr.. Lewis, of Mississippi,
Mr.. Hamill admitted that sometimes specu-
lation forced prices down, but he believed
| this was generally temporary, and that in
the aggregate it sustained prices. A put"
| or 'call" was not tolerated by the Board of
| Trade 1t was purely gambling transac-
| tion, and the board would welcome any
thing which prohibited it.
Puts and Calls After Market Hours.
In answer to Mr. Hatch, Mr. Hamill said
there was q settling room in the Board of
Trade building, in which puts and calls
were frequently bought and sold from 1:15
o'clock, the Jime the exchange closed, until
o'clock. No record was kept of these
transactions. In his opinion, these deal
| ings had no appreciable effect on prices in
the open market. The difference between a
future and an option was that one was
nd tho 9TH
make a contract.
Mr.. Hatch said that all the members of
the committee admitted there was such q
thing as b legitimate sale of futures. He
asked Mr. Hamil to define an illegitimate
sale.
Mr. Hamill said the law of Illinois and
the courts had defined the difference. The
Board of Trade required an actual delivery
in every case-not a personal delivery, in
volving carting of wheat from one ware
house to another, but delivery of ware
house set, on which the wheat could be
obtained. The sale was made on actual
wheat and that sale could be duplicated
indefinitely just as S. bill could be passed
from hand to hand. The sale was negoti-
able contract.
No Effect on Visible Supply.
To Mr. Hatch Mr.. Hamill said that dupli-
C8LlOu OF cOuGIaCtS WOulu uOC nave any eI-
feet whatever on the visible supply"
The contract might be passed from hand to
hand and finally come back to the first man
who made it. The contract must be lived
up to whenever the time arrived for its full
fillment. This future dealing kept up the
prices because the ''short' seller was the
most anxious buyer, and the producer had
him as well as the miller and the exporter
to sell to. He believed this influence of
the "bulls" more than counteracted the ex-
cess of sales over actual produce. He
knew of hardly any "bears" who had made
money, but could name number of
'bulls" who had grown rich.
Referring to Mr.. Hamilps statement that
agriculturists had first demanded future
dealings, Mr.. Hatch called attention to the
fact that there was an unbroken line of
agricultural organizations demanding the
passage of the bill.
To Mr.. Moses, Mr.. Hamill said the one
eighth of a cent commission was liable to
''break" both sides to a deal, and that the
speculator was bis own worst enemy. The
millers he said in conclusion, would like
the bill passed, because it would give them
q monopoly and enable them to buy on
their own terms.
s. W. Allerton and Mr.. Morton, of the
Chicago Board, also opposed the bill.