The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-02-09
FUTURES HELP PRICES.
NEW ORLEANS COTTON MEN DOWN
ON THE ANTI-OPTION BILLS.

An Editor of agricultural Papers in
Massachusetts Points Out the Wide
Difference Between the Trade in
Future and Spot Cotton in New York.
Arguments of the Other Side.
WASHINGTON, Feb s.-Hearings Of the
House agricultural committee on the anti
option bills were resumed this morning
The first gentleman TO appear was Herbert
Myrick of Springfield, Mass, editor Of sew
eral agricultural papers. This matter Of
dealing in fictitious kinds Of produce, he
said, was one which affected not
only the producers OF the south and west,
but the farmers Of the north ana east, for
whatever interfered with the prosperity of
one section had an effect upon the farmers
of every other. Passing on to the question
of cotton, he stated that in the city Of New
York, between Sept l and Jan. /, the total
SPOT sales had amounted TO $1,000 bales.
This was about as much as had been
actually received. But the sales Of cotton
in futures during the same period had
amounted TO ,359. 200 bales.
THE DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED.
J. W. Lsubauisse, representing the New
Orleans Cotton Exchange, referred to the
last speakers comparison between spot
shlGs anu luIuAo bAAbo "a NobAOu Al NOW
York city and said that city did not claim
TO be spot market, though it was the
recognized cotton market for the United
States. This accounted for the small pro-
portion of spot sales as compared with the
future sales. The gentleman had argued
that this disproportion had the result OF
lowering the price OF cotton.
Had the gentleman quoted the proportion
existing in lSS9-lS90 it wonld be seen that
the proportion then had been even larger in
favor of futures; and yet the price Of cotton
had enhanced. He was aware that a belief
obtained in many quarters that dealings in
contracts for future delivery deprecated
the value Of the article dealt in, and that
therefore, they should be, as far as possible,
suppressed.
RESTRAINED DECLINES.
AS regards cotton, and to this article
alone was this argument addressed, he was
of the opinion that so far from depreciating
its value. the existence of contracts for
future delivery served rather as a restraint
10 serious declines in times OF depression.
The great determining elements of price were
the supply and demand and the price could
not be permanently lowered or advanced
by dealings in contracts for future deliv-
cry. He quoted statistics to show that
when sales of futures were unknown the
fluctuations in the price of cotton had been
as great or greater than they had been
since. II the future market of New York
and New Orleans were closed all business
would be transferred to Liverpool. Havre
and Bremen.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND FIX THE PRICE.
In answer to a question he denied that
the exchanges of New Orleans and New
YORK regulated the price. They simply
registered il. The law of supply and de-
mand regulated the price. Not only would
the passage Of the bill destroy these markets
but it would bring the movement of the cot
ton crop to dead halt. In conclusion he
read a protest of the bankers of the New
Orleans Board Of Trade and from the Hous-
ton (Tex.l Board OF Trade against the pass
age of the bill.
John @. Hazard, also representing the
New Orleans Cotton Exchange, followed in
the same line Of argument, declaring that
time had eradicsted the idea that the sale
of futures had been the cause of the depres-
sion in the price of cotton. He believed if
this bill became law it would psralyze the
cotton industry, revolutionize all business
and make the farmer poor, indeed.