St. Paul daily globe., 1892-02-19
FARMER ALLERTON.
The Pork Packer Opposed to
WaShburn's RilI.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1S.-The subcOm-
mittee of the senate committee on the
Judiciary listened this morning to an
argument made in opposition to the
Washburn bill by Samuel w. Allerton,
Of Illinois, who stated that he had been
a practical farmer for the past 30 years.
The system of dealing in futures, he said.
had not been lnaugurated for gambling
purposes 1t had grown out Of the
necessities of the grain trade. The
trading was not fictitious, but grew out
of established opinion, based on intelli-
gent thought, of what the world would
need in the future. The prompter of
this bill seemed TO be the mill COM
bine'' controlled by English capital. 1t
was designed to destroy the Chicago
market-the greatest center market in
the world.
Legislation of this character had been
enacted, and was further proposed, and
if it were continued before congress cot
through, citizen would not be able to
breathe the fresh air of heaven without
being surrounded by government spies
and detectives. Individual rights were
on the verge of destruction. He veu-
tured that every congressman who
voted for the pending bill would, in two
years, be as dead politically as dried
Egyptian mummy.
Senator Washburn inquired what adj
vantage the bill would give to the
miller. Mr.. AIlerton replied that if the
future trading in Chicago was limited
and hampered by laws the market there
would be destroyed and the milers of
Minnesota could buy their wheat cheap
e1. Let the millerS destroy the Chicago
market and they will have the market
to themselves. Senator Washburn
stated that it was not in the interests of
the millerS to have cheap wheat.
y ii. Norton, shipper of Chicago,
argued against the bill. The board of
trade of that city, he said, had no Oh
lection TO the provision of the measure
directed against 'options." though it
believed it was undignified and unnec-
ceSSary for congress to adopt such
legis alton. What it did object to was
a law to prohibit the free buying for
future delivery of grain and hog prod
ucts. The bill purported to be revenue
measure, but this claim was made only
to cloak and cover up other objects.
1t was particularly aimed at the Chicago
board OF trade. 1t would not prevent
the wealthy miller from selling flour for
future delivery and it would place the
wheat raiserS at his mercy. The passage
of the bill would prove the greatest
calamity that had ever come to the
farmer, and its advocates would receive
the earnest curses of the farmers from
one end OF the country to the other.
ID. B. Smith. of Toledo, o., argued at
the bill, instead of proving beneficial
to agriculturalists would have the con.
trary effect. 1t would strike damag-
ing blow to the great system of trading
which had grown up from the necessi-
ties of the country and its matchless
advancement. 1t would prove the most
disastrous legislation ever inflicted on
the business interests of the lard. The
future system was great evener and
regulator of market values. and pre-
vented fall in prices in times of de-
preston.
w. G. Brown, a miller of Fostoria, O..
told the house committee on agriculture
that any anti-option bill should be made
uniformly operative on all and should
not discriminate. In his argument. Mr.
Brown maintained that the future"
system gave the farmer better market
for his product and was not necessary
for the protection of the miller. The
miller. he said, by buying futures, knew
what amount of capital he would ac-