The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-07-30
THE ANrr.oPTIoN BILI.

The discussion OF the impOrthnl puo0''"
involved in the Anti-Option bill. which has
passed the House Of Representatives ana Is
now pending before the Senate. have been
40 neglected. not only by The TIMES, but
other papers, because Of other and more eA-
citing subjects, that we shall treat the Dill az
though nothing whatever had been said OF
it.
The bill aims at preventing the making OF
tuo kinds of contracts which II denoml-
mates as options" and futures" IL de-
fines options" as contracts by which one
person has q right TO require another person
"a take certain quantity Of named things
from him at a future time al certain price,
the first person not being bound, holcerer, 10
deIirer the things. and it defines futures as
contracts by which a person undertakes 70
sell things to be delivered in the future that
he does not own at the time he makes the
contract. It does what Congress can DO 10
prevent such contracts as these, ID respect
10 the articles named, in the future. Inc
articles named arc raw or manufactured
cotton. hops. wheat, corn, oats, rye oarley,
grass seeds. fax seed pork, lard bacon anu
other edible product of swine"
Now there is nothing whatever In either
of the contracts named that is inconsistent
with or variant to the spirit and purpose OF
our ancient laws and institutions. Both
have always been considered entirely legiu-
mate forms of bargaining and trading and
,rdaed HIGHLY conducive 10 mercantile
development.
There is no reason in principle why II
thinks wheat will be high on the LIST OF
January and thinks it will be low, A should
not pay b now $500 in hand for the priyi-
lege of delivering to him 10000 bushels OF
wheat on the lst of January next at 81 per
bushei, and if B takes AS $500 and gets the
enjoyment of it he ought in good faith TO
be required to take and pay for the wheat
when January arrives. If wheat Is low
then he will make q profit. If wheat Is
high then be will loose money, but the case
is in no way distInguishRble IN principle
from any case where a merchant buys hop
ing there will be a rise in the goods, but
unfortunately for him there is fall.
SO. there is no reason in principle why
the contract described as future" should
not be made. b perceives that he will need
II, 900 bushels of wheat IN his business on
lst Of January next for which he is satisfied,
on looking all over the ground. that he can
afford to pay 81 per bushel. A knows
place where he can now secure 10000
bushels of wheat at 90 cents per busheL
There is no reason in principle why b shall
not bind himself to Alto take from him 10 900
bushels of wheat at 81 per bushel on the
LIST of January. whereupon A, having
market for the wheat. secured ut profit.
buys the wheat outright and holds 1T for
January LIST. The principles involved in these
two contracts are the principles involved IL
all,speculative business. and all business 10
speculative in greater or less degree.
But the popular mind has absorbed
strong prejudices against the contracts de-
scribed as being gaming contracts. We
should remember that there's nothing in the
principles of our institutions that condemn
gaming contracts. Under the freedom of
our common law men were as free to make
gaming contracts, if they chose to enter
into them, as any other contracts. They
have only been forbidden by positive
statute enactment within comparative
short time.
Nevertheless we hear our rural friends say
that the courts constantly declare contracts
for the future delivery of stock and grain
void as gaming contracts, but we reply that
they never do so if the contract really con-
templates that there shall be a purchase or
sale of stocks or grain. 1t is only when the
hidden purpase of the parties is disclosed
and it is seen that it was never intended
that there should be any real purchase or
sale of the articles that the courts declare
the contracts void as gaming contracts.
Where no real purchase or sale is oontem-
plated the transaction is really a bet be-
tween the parties that at the future day the
article will be of the price named.
Our agricultural friends think that these
future" sales regulate the price of their
crops. In our opinion that price is regulated
by the inexorsble law of supply and demand
and these transactions have no more to do
with it than the fly in the fable had to do
with the dust raised by the carriage on
whose axle be rode.