Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-02-19
OPPOSES TEE BILL.
An Illinois Farmer of Forty Years ES-
perience Tells How 1t Would Affect the
Farming Interests.

An Illinois Farmer of Forty Years EN-
perience Tells How 1t Would Affect the
Farming Interests.
WASHINGTON, d. c., February IS
The subcommittee of the Senate Com
mittee on the Judiciary listened this
morning TO an argument made in oppo-
sition to the Washburn bill by Mr.. Sam
uel w. AIlerton, of Illinois, who stated
that he had been a practical farmer Tor
the past forty years. The system OF
dealing in futures, he said, had not
been inaugurated for gambling. pur-
poses. 1t had grown out OF the necessl-
ties Of the grain trade.
The trading was not fictitious, but
grew out OF established opinion, based
on intelligence though, OF what the
world would need in the future. The
prompter of this bill seemed to be the
mill combine" controlled by English
capital. 1t was designed TO destroy
the Chicago market, the greatest CEN
ire market in the world. Legislation
OF this character has been enacted and
was further proposed, and If 1t were
continued, before Congress got through
citizen would not be able to breathe
the fresh air of heaven without being
surrounded by government spies ana
detectives.
Individual rights were on the verge
| of distractions; he ventured that every
Congressman who voted for the pend
ing bill would, in two years, be az dead
politically as a dried Egyptian mumm y.
Senator Washburn inquired what al.
vantage the passage OF the bill won IN
| give TO the miller.
MIR. Allerton replied that IL the fu-
| ture trading in Chicago was limited and
hampered by laws the market there
would be destroyed, and the millers OF
Minnesota could buy their wheat
| cheaper. Let the millers destroy the
Chicago market and they would have
| the market TO themselves.
Senator Wasburn said II was not to
the interest of miller TO have cheap
| wheat
Mr.. Allerton argued against the bill.
The Board OF Trade OF that city, he
| said, had no objection to the provision
| of the measure directed against "op-
tions," though it belieyed that 1t was
undignified and unnecessary for Con-
gress to adopt such legislation.
| What 1t did object TO was law to
prohibit the free buying for future de-
| livery of grain and hog products. The
bill purported to be a revenue measure,
but this claim was made only to cloak
| and cover up other objects.
1t was particularly aimed at the Chi
cago Board OF Trade. 1t would not
prevent the wealthy miller from selling
hour for future delivery and 1t would
place the wheat rasers at his mercv.
! The passage Of the measure would prove
the greatest calamity that ever came to
| the farmers and its advocates would re-
ceive the earnest curses OF the farmers
| from one end OF the country TO the
other.
d. Il. Smith, OF Toledo, argued that
the bill, instead OF proving beneficial to
aqriculturists. would have the contrary
effect. Ii would strike damaging
| blow to the great system OF trading
which had grown up from the necessi-
ties OF the country and its matches adj
yancement. II would prove the most
disastrous legislation ever inflicted on
the business interests OF the land. The
future system was a great eyeDer and
regulator Of market values and pre-
vented 4 fall in values in times OF de-
preston.