The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-02-18
ANII-OPTION.
Spectators Oppose The Bill, While Farmers
Favor Il.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16.-A large number
Of gentlemen, principally representing the
New York Produce Exchange and the New
Orleans Cotton Exchange, were before the
Senate Judiciary Committee this morning
to present their views relative to the Wash
burn anti-Op;ion bill.
J. w. Labouisse, representing the New
Orleans Cotton Exchange, was The first 10
address the committee in opposition 10 the
bill
Alfred Romer Of the New York Produce
Exchange, Charles ID. Hamil and Thomas
A. Wright Of the Chicago Board Of Trade
and William Cudahy, a Chicago pork
packer, also argued in opposition TO the bill.
Charles W. Ide, President Of the New
York Exchange said that II either Of
the bills introduced In the Senate and
House passed, tie business Of his exchange
would be utterly destroyed. The system Of
dealing in contra IS for future deliveries
was so interviewer with and interiocked in
tile business OF the present day that II could
not be taken from it without seriously dam
aging the entire system Of commerce.
James c. Bi0ss, Vice-PTesident Of the
New York Exchange, also opposed the bill.
FAVORED BY FARMERS.
c. W. Macune OF the Farmers Alliance
to-day addressed the House Committee on
Agriculture in favor OF the antlODtiOns
bill He said 1t did not interfere with the
legitimate futures" dealer, but only with
the dealer in futures" who is understood
to manipulate the market. In his opinion
there is no question that the present sys-
tenn is bad for the producer,
j. II. Brigham Of Ohio, master OF the Ma
tional Grange, sad the farmer knew from
tie first that he had drought, lain and
other adverse conditions % meet lie now
learned that he had also to contend with
combinations which make all his lab0rs
Improbable.
A MINNESOTA AuLLER's VIEWS.
Charles A. Pllsbury. a Minneapolis
miller, stated in the course of his remarks
while on the stand that the worlds surplus
supply Of wheat was steadily dwindling,
and is being drawn on each year to meet the
increasing consumption. He said that If
one man had owned the wheat crop raised
In the United States this year it Oud have
been possible to get 81 90 per bushel for it
from Europe just as easy as 80 cents, be-
cause Europe had to have it. Russia had
none to export and India had shipped its
surplus the previous year.
LeWis.-Then the statistical position OF
wheat has been growing better for five
years past and the price, except for the
squirt this year, has been growing weaker
Pllsbury-Thats so.
Lewis-Doesn't the value Of money have
a great deal to do with it? Isn't money
worth more than ever?
Pillsbury-I think as a whole the dollar
will buy more goods now than ever.
Lewis-If we had 81, SOC, ,0OO, 600 instead Of
S6J0000,000 In circulation would not the
farmers get more for their wheatP
PillsbuTy-MOre nominal dollars, perhaps,
but they could not buy so much.
In reply TO a further question from Lewis,
PlllsbuTy admitted the short selling alone
would not account for the decline in wheat,
which was too great to be chargeable to one
cause alone. In his address to the commit
tee, Pillsbury advocated the passage Of an
anti-options bill Pillsbury said there
should have been high prices for wheat this
year. but partly in consequence Of short
selling the mlllers and others living from
hand u mouth, tue world was drawing on
the surplus supply Of wheat each year, for
the consumption WIS steadily increasing.
Clifford of Kankskee. ILL.,, said IN asurplus
producing country no good effect could fol-
low short" selling, for short" always
wanted lower prices. He thought the laws
should be so framed as to give the right to
buy property for future delivery, and when
delivery CONTRACTED for, to sell those con-
tracts either before or after delivery.
The hearings will close Tomorrow