The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-02

THE ANTI-opTIOS BILL.


Tie passage Of the anti-option bill by
the United States senate is a bit of absurd
legislation. The pretended purpose of the
anti-option bill is TO raise the price Of GER
tain farm products. Whether you pro-
hibit one business for the sake OF another
business or tax one business for the sake
OF another, you are attempting to enforce
discrimination that is contrary 10 public
justice and sound policy and in violation
OF the constitution of the United States.
This anti-option bill proposes to iufict
prohibitory tax on dealers IN futures and
options in certain products, not for the
purpose Of raising revenue, but for the
purpose Of suDpressing the business OF
these dealers and bcnefiting producers Of
such products The bill imp oses taxation
for the assumed benefit Of farmers and
planters and for the injury of the various
commercial exchanges of the country.
This kind of legislation is nothing but
musty old straw threshed anew by dema-
rogues and wooden-headed cranks. In
the seventh year of George the Second Of
England an act was passed iorbidding
dealing in futures, and branded it as 'the
infamous practice Of stock jobbing." The
English statute was repealed in 1910. A
trial of Us years convinced the English
people that ''prohibitory legislation which
did not prohibit" ought to be expunged
from the statutes. In 1912 similar law
against stock jobbing was passed in New
York, and in 1853 it was repealed. Every
man OF business brains knows that futures
arc means of minimizing the risk On all
competitive productions. Risks to mill
ers, manufacturers. merchants and trans
porters generally cannot be minimzed,
nor, indeed. seriously diminished. without
their aid. In so far rs futures" lessen the
risks of production to all original pro-
ducers of commodities, they eliminate
gambling from industry. instead of in
ereasing its hold.
The argument of Senator Sherman for
the bill was that it prohibited contracts
which disturb and unnaturally depress
the farmers markets. Ifthis were true IL
would not justify class legislation but it
is not true. for If the measure could be en-
forced i. would be more injurious than
beneficial to the farmers, for it would
suppress that speculation in produce
which tends to keep up prices at times
when the crops are being marketed and
steadies them. In support of this view
the Springfield Republican says:
In the case OF wheat, for example, the average
price In the past eve years has actually ruled
higher In the fall months when the crop was
being poured upon the market than during the
last half Of the crop year, or in the late winter
aud spring, when IL has mostly teen marketed.
TAis average price In the five years has been
about ~ cents bushei at Chicago for the last
six months OF the year. the period of crop
msrketiag. aud about So cents for the first SIX
months of the year, when the crop has passed
from the farners hands. II stands TO reason
that without arge and general dealings in
futures prices Of cotton and grain must rule
lower st the marketing season than at any
other. And this will be found to be true in the
case o; crops not subject TO such dealings as
hay and potstoe.
Speculation III produce is ap. to undulY
rsise prices as 10 depress them Thus IN 1891
or belief that the shortage OF whest 10 Eufope
would create iliinitaba demand for the
American product, the spectators pushed NJ
the price 10 The fail 10 above 81 "A bushe, during
which time the tanners sold the wheat Bat it
later sppeareJ that the SPECTATORS had over
estimated The demand and prices fell - below
- cents on the average in the las; half OF the
crop year. IL was plainly the farmers who bed
the spectators that time.
In the course Of the senate debate Mr..
Villas proposed an amendment limiting
the scope of the bin 10 dealings where
actuaI delivery was not contemplated in
good faith: but Mr.. Washburn declared
that such an amendment would destroy
absolutely the whole purpose of the bill. I"
To get at Legitimate transactions in the
produce markets, this bill would suppress
legitimate transactions, too; and il saws
20 the trading world OF our citizens that
buyers ana sellers of grain, pork. produce.
lard. etc. cannot meet and trade lin or
upon ANY board OF trade, produce.
cotton or merchants or other ex-
change" without becoming liable 10
prosecution conspirators against
the farmer. This proposition is so
the South and West see clearly that they
would not get higher prices for their prod
ucts il option dealing on the exchanges
was forbidden. The illinois farmers, who
raise large quantities of corn and pork
opposed the bill, and Senator Palmer
spoke aud voted against it. The farmers
Of Central and Southern Illinois, who
market their corn 81 pork in Chicago or
81. Louis. ought 20 feel the evil effects Of
option dealing If any farmers IN the coun-
try do. and yet these Illinois farmers pro-
nounced against this bill and ssked their
senators 70 vote against IL The expert
ence of the cotton planters of the South
this winter is g sutfeien. answer, If anv
were needed, 10 the claim thAt the ten
doucy Of option dealing is TO inevitably re-
due prices.
Every attempt 70 execute corner" in
grain or produce in Chicago hiss served 20
market the farmers products AZ high
prices. while Il has generally crushed the
spe culators and Jeff them. not tie farmer,
wish their dnEers IN tae log. Tie bill
vl1 hardly get ;hroneh the house again.
lut Il II tots the president uiil surely veto
il. The government has ~ more business
- tax the commercial exchanges and
legitimate dealers IN futures ort cf ex-
;stence. even # il we're possible fos the As
sumea bensiis Q; the farmer than 1. LIS 10