The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-02-10
FUTURES HOLD UPPRICES
MORE TESTIMONY AGAINST The
ANPI-OPIION BILLS

henry B Nieland Reads the Protest o.
the New York Produce Exchange
The Low Price Of Cotton Attributed
to an Excsss in the supply Over the
Demand.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9.-The views Of the
New York Produce Exchange. ia regard t.
the proposed legislation against the sale OF
| options, were presented to the House com.
mittee on agriculture to-day by Henry B
Nieland, who read the protest OF that en
change against the passage Of the bill The
protest states that the exchange heartily
approves of section of tbs
measure defining options. rhe evils arts.
| ing from trading in options as there do
| hned, wers web known and any legislation
which would repress such practice would he
welcome. But the bill, in section 2, pro
poled TO restrict trading in futures, which
was a very different form of trading, anc
which included contracts which were con.
| tinually used by all classes Of merchants
aud dealers and bankers, who we're dealing
IN the products mentioned in section s in
perfectly legitimate way.
| ACTUAL DELIVERY REQUIRED.
In all the future contracts of the exchange
the actual delivery of the article sold waI
| provided for, and that was the basis OF
which the contract rested. The seller wal
Obliged to delive- and the buyer to take de,
livery of the product when the time named
in the contract came. Any interference by
legislation with the laws governing
trade should only be made wher
| gross abuses sought rectifcation
Laws that had been successful in
| governing trade had been the outgrowth O.
many trials and some failures. Such law
grew with trade customs, and such customi
| had h. -
| The business done in futures was piece OF
machinery for moving the products of tbs
| country, as far superior to the old method
| OF doing the same as railroads are ahead o!
| wagons, or elevators OF half-bushel meas.
| ures.
| EVILS OF THE REMEDY.
Tho remedy proposed Eby the bill for ar
| illegitimate method Of trading in futures
would involve in ruin the entire system
under which the legitimate business Of tbs
| exchanges was prosecuted. Ig was asserted
by some that dealing In futures
was always disastrous to the pro.
| Queer, but as much might be said in
the opposite direction and that in the
long run the farmer, who used dealings il
futures TO market his own product and
that alone would be the gamer by Selling
those opportunities that now and again oc.
CURED under this system. BY the system
OF dealing In futures, benefits were con-
| ferred upon the farmer, hog packer, miller
| merchant, exporter OF grain exporter oi
provisions and banker and capitalist.
UNsETTLEMENr DISASTROUS.
| Unsettlement OF our commercial relations
with other countries must be disastrous tc
all concerned in them and to Done more
than the farmer. whose skill and labor pro.
ducss livelihood for himself and those do.
pendent on him, and vast addition to tbs
| wealth Of the nation Of which he ia a citi-
zen. In conclusion Mr.. Nieland said that
the passage Of the bill would
humiliate every produce exchange in the
| country. IL would put the members of
those exchanges in the attitude OF gamblers
They we're not gamblers. The men who
had embarked their fortunes in transactions
OF business between producer and consumer
we're as competent to handle these question:
as any one could be. TIE bill was class
legislation, and he hoped that the COMMITTEES
would take that fact into consideration.
CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMITTEE.
The chairman said that so far as any
| member Of the committee had expressed
himself upon the measure, those expressions
had been based entirely on the proposition
that they were considering a bill that would
prohibit just such TRANSACTIONS as were pro-
hlbited by courts OF law throughout the
| United States. In respone to a question
| by Mr.. Moses, Mr.. Nieand stated that the
|
purely gambling, and that 1t would be bene-
fetal to the producer IL Sthe bucket shop
business should be In some way abolished.
IDE ARGUES AGAINST 1T.
| G. w. Ids of the New York Cotton Ex
change made an argument against the bill.
| The interest Of his institution, he said, was
III great peril. Private interests were i'm
periled; the plqnter was in peril; the spin
ner was In PERIL every one interested In the
tfKr ffFneK .faw -
| peril from the passage Of this measure. This
proposition was second In importance only
to the tariff bill, because it affected the
| price OF every product mentioned in the
| third section Of the bill. It was not fair to
the cotton exchange TO permit it to address
| the committee for but one hour He would
like to have a special committee to invest.
| gate this question.
TOO MUCH COTTON.
He could show the committee that tho
/ store houses in Liverpool and Bremen were
| packed with cotton; he could show them
| the mills OF New England oversrocked with
| cotton. The decline in the price of cotton
was due to the large supply. and yet gen.
/ tlemen said that the whole trouble was to
be found in dealing in futures. The future
| system had the effect Of bolstering prices
because it attracted capital.
| Vice President Goss Of the New York
| Cotton Exchange read a protest signed by
| a number of New York bankers against the
proposed legislation. He then went on to
argue that to abolish the future system
| would be Of no advantage TO the producer
and would result in the most violent
| fluctuations In the value of products.
| To abolish futures would be to
doaway with one Of the most essential prin.
| ciples OF modern trade. The system of fut-
ures prevented depression in the price Of
the produce in times Of overproduction, be.
cause IL enabled capital 70 take up the sur
plus, relying upon events which would re-
| pay 1t for the risk
| Iha cnmmikran than ahinnrnad