St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-02-16
TALKED FOR .FuTUREs."
Chicago Traders Labor With Mr..
Hatch's COmmittee


WASHINGTON, Feb. 15.-The Chic ,go
board OF trade had hearing before the
house committee on agriculture today
Oh the anticipation bill. and through its
president. Charles w. HamlI, opposed
the passage of the bill on the ground
that it prohibited dealings in futures"
The system of future deliveries Mr..
Hamill sad, grew up in response to a
demand from agriculturiSts for con-
tlnuOuS open market. which was inlpoS-
SIbe without future buying and selling.
He believed the sale of futures was in
the interest OF producers. Speculation,
IN his opinion, had tendency 10 sus-
tain values. If a man were prohibited
from buying for future delivery great
stimulus to buying would be taken
away.
In answer to Mr.. Lewis, of Missis-
slppl, Mr.. Hannll admitted that some
times speculation forced prices down.
but he believed this was generally
temporary, and that in the aggregate it
sustained prices. The first dealings in
FUTURES" Were by the government,
during tue war. in mess pork. So far as
IL was proposed to prevent "Optiou"
dealings. the board of trade was in favor
OF the bill. Options were dealt In out
SIDE the board by members in good
b standing, but II was against the board
rules and against the state lazy. The
board had repeatedly urged the state
authorities to prosecute the dealers.
he board took the view that lit was
not police officer and was hardly
called upon to prosecute these men
Itself. If done outside the board room
the exchange had no jurisdiction and,
therefore, did not provide for expulsion
OF members doing an option business.
"A put or "ca!P' was not tolerated by
the board of trade. 1t was purely
gambling transaction. and the board
would welcome anything which pro-
hibited 1t.
L answer to Mr.. Hatch, Mr.. Hamill
SAID there was settling room ia the
board of trade building in which puts
and calls were frequently bought
and sold from / rs O'Clock, the time the
exchange closed. until O'clock No
record was kept of these transactions.
In his opinion. these dealings had no
appreciable effect OH prices in the open
market.
MIR. Hatch said that all the members
or the committee admitted there was
such thing as legitimate sale of fut-
ures. He asked Mr.. Hamill to- define
legitimate sale. Mr.. Hamill said the
law OF Illinois and the courts had de-
fined the difference. The board of trade
required an actual delivery in every
case-not personal delivery involving
carting OF wheat from ohe warehouse to
another, but a delivery of warehouse
receipt on which the wheat could be Oh
tanned. The sale was made OH actual
wheat and that sale could be duplicated
indefinitely just as 4 five-dollar bill could
be passed from hand TO hand The sale
was negotiable contract.
To Mr.. Hatch, Mr.. Hamill said that
duplication of contracts would not have
any effect whatever on the visible sup
ply" This future dealing kept up
prices. because the short seller was
the most anxious buyer and the pro-
Queer had him. as well as the miller
and exporter. to sell to. He believed
this influence of the ''buIlS" more than
cOuiteracted the excess of sales over
actual produce. He knew of hardly
any s'bears" who had made money, but
could name number of bulls" who
had grown rich
Referring to Mr.. Hamill's statement
that agricultursts had first demanded
future" dealings. Mr.. Hatch called at
tention to the fact that there was an
unbroken line of agricultural organiZa-
tons demanding the passage of the bill.
TO Mr.. Moses. Mr.. Hamili said that Cne-
eighth of cent commission was liable
to break both sides to deal and that
the specuIator was his own worst
enemy. The millers, he said in conclu-
sion, would like the bill passed because
1t would give them q monopoly and ell
able them to buy on their terms. S. w.
AllertOn and Mr.. Morton. OF the Chicago
board, also oppose tile bill.