Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1892-12-01
THE OPTION GAMBLERS ARGUMENT

Opposition 20 the anti-option legis-
lation is chiefly remarkable for two
things, namely, the activity and viru-
lence with which it is carried on, and
the fallacious and sophistical argument
adduced to support it.
The activity and virulence with
which the present iniquitious system is
defended is easily explained. There's
millions in it.'' Wheresoever the car
cass is, the buzZards come. No vice
has ever been so vicious that it las
lacked defenders, provided the voice
pays. Nor is it difficult to see why the
arguments by which the option dealing
is supported are necessarily fallacious
and sophistical in their character. No
system that is wholly bad in morals, as
well as political economy can be sup
ported by any other kind of argument,
and hence sound reasoning cannot be
expected from its advocates.
They may be classed as two kinds
the transparently bad and the SEEM
ingly plausible difference being
that the latter aim to confuse the gen.
eral public, who are not familiar with
the details, and the first do not.
We are told, for example that the
crops could not be handled if the bill
prohibiting option and future gambling
were to become a law. Just how or
why this is so we have never seen ex-
planned, although we have patiently
waded through quite a number of elab-
crate attempts at an explanation. Be-
fore gambling methods came in vogue
there was no trouble in marketing the
cereal and textile crops in any quantity
by q satisfactory method. Why not,
now? 1t should be noticed that it is
only few things that are gambled in
and almost uniformly there is more dis
satisfaction than those on which the
gambler cannot get his hands. There
is no gambling in hogs, and yet we sell
$3.50 ,OOO, 900 worth of them. Why
should there be in cotton, worth but
little more in the aggregate? There is
no option selling in hay, and no one
CANDLES at the market. Why should
there be in wheat? Our butter is worth
about twice as much as our bread. We
are told that wheat must be gambled on
or it cannot be sold, yet the flour goes
into the bake ovenwithout the gambler S
assistance, but he must have his hands
on the products. Who believes such an
absurd pretense? During a certain ten
days in 1890, tabulated in speech de-
livered on this subject in Congress at
the last session, the New York market
sold 337 800 bushels of actual wheat
and 3,2O6 bales of actual cotton; dur
ing the same ten days there were
s'sold'' IN the same market 125, ,720 ,O0O
bushels of wind or fictious wheat and
6S4, 900 bales of phantom cotton. Does
any sane man suppose that these So
called .'salesn of 372 bushels of flat
wheat to each bushel of the actual pro.
sduct actually sold, contributed in the
slightest degree to the sale of genuine
:wheat? Or, does any one believe thai
zthis gambling to the extent of 213 bales
sof 6ctious cotton to each bale of actual
product sold, in any degree aided in
the sale of the bale that was sold:
Every one who has given the subject
the slightest thought and is capable .ot
linking two ideas together in a logica
sequence knows that the reverse i.
true that it, instead of aiding in sucl
sale. obstructed it and reduced tn,
price obtained. 1t is perfectly clear al
SO that had there been a strong combi
nation of capital ready to hold up th'
price of the wheat and cotton, in th'
New York market against the effort
of these market rockers, it would hav'
been obliged during that period of tel
days to have purchased not only al