The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1892-01-22
EXPLANATION NOT JUSTIFICATION.

No measure has so agitatd the spec
ulatOrs in wheat, as that introduced
into the United States Senate by
Senator Washburn, of this State.
With one accord the Board of Trade
men all agree that the measure will
ruin the farmer. Strange it is that
they should, all of a sudden, feel so
much anxiety for the tiller of the soil,
when for years they have been per-
fectly willing to squeeze him as long
as he had a bushel of wheat left. The
object Of the bill is simply to put a
stop to, the dealing in that which
does not exist. Undoubtedly there is
much that can be justly said against
the bill, from the dealers standpoint,
for it is not claimed that it is perfect.
What is wanted is a measure that
will be just to all, and this can only
be secured by thorough discussion
of the question. Assertions that it
will ruin SO and SO count for little.
l. l.
commenting upon the measure, the
Chicego hater-Ocean says:
Just now the farmers are getting
satisfactory prices for their corn, but
the price of wheat is out of all proper
tion to the demand. The Washburn
bill has in it's favor the fact that
there must be something wrong some
where, and the feeling that fiat wheat
! is the great bear of the situation is
very general. The strong presump-
tion, or at least predisposition, is on
the side of the Senator from Mime
| sofa.
1t will be observed by those who
have followed the discussion that the
opponents of the bill agree in insist
ing that the farmers are benefited
by short selling, but for the most part
they are the short sellers themselves
who make this claim. Some Board of
Trade men look with considerable ia
vor upon the bill. They concede that
ffatism is an evil, as it now prevails,
and that Congress would do well to
try and regulate it if they cannot stop
it altogether. For the most part.
however, the men who deal in grain.
whether it be the fat or the real ar
| ticle. condemn the bill as both inn
practicable and undesirable. They
insist that it could not be enforced il
passed and would be pernicious if en-.
forced. They go so far, generally, as
to see no evil to be reformed or abat-
ed.
1t is no disparagement to any other
participant in this discussion to say
that the ablest argument on either
side up to date is the interview with
G. Wood Davis, of Kansas, now in
Washington. Mr.. Davis is a farmer
but he is also great agricultural
Statistician.
Mr.. Davis shows that it is prepos.
ferrous in the extreme to set up the
claim that the short or fiat sales dc
not exceed the actual wheat available
for delivery. His position is that
wheat should be sold the same as
other products, agricultural and man.
ufactured, according to the actual
supply. There is no short selling in
the general market. Why should an
exception be made of breadstuffs? Nc
good reason for the existing difference
has been given. The logic of the
position taken by the defenders OF
short selling is that f1atism is a good
thing in trade, however, it may be in
finace, and. that, instead of trying te
eliminate Ut from wheat, the effort
should be to extend it and make il
general AS yet no advocate OF short
selling has gone that far, and it il
hardly likely that any man in his
senses will do so. Mr.. c. Wood Davi: