The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-01-06
THE ANTI-OPTIoN BILL.

The Washburn anti-option bill, now
pending in the United States senate, is an
absurd and pernicious measure. 1t is
absurd. because it is impracticable TO silt
out OF the operations of produce exchanges
mbling pure and simple from legitimate
transactions; it is pernicious because,
while pretending TO help the producer OF
grain and cotton it proposes to prohibit
the legitimate operations in futures on the
exchanges which are necessary to enable
shippers Of produce TO q distance to pro-
tect themselves against loss. No cotton
goods factory in New England could do bus
mess with any safety if it could not protect
itself by buying cotton for future delivery.
Legitimate operations in futures level up
prices against the wants OF the future and
steady prices; they are essential to the
economy and efficiency of distribution. To
tax these legitimate operations and sup
press them would be most destructive TO
the machinery of commerce, and the evil
result would fall upon the wheat and cot
ton grower in whose behalf the bill is
urged for enactment. The argument for
its passage is that if you allow men to sell
what ,hey do not at the time possess they
can beat down prices indefinitely, and to
this selling short" on the produce ex-
changes is attributed the low price which
cotton and wheat have of late years COM
manded. Replying to this shallow plea,
the Springfield (Mass.) Republican says:
But to make the point good it is necessary to
show that where men have sold an article they
do not at the time own, those who do own it
must come down TO the price named by the
"shor," seller when the latter seeks the produce
with which 10 fulfill his contract. And yet
grave and reverend senators are now seriously
trying TO maintain such point Nothing could
be more ridiculous
If this bill becomes a law no merchant
or tradesman could lawfully sell pound
Of pork or cotton or bushel of wheat
that he did not at the time of sale actually
have in his possession without taking
out a Federal license and paying
Federal tax. If congress can do this
there is no limit to its invasion of
the individual right to do business
and multiply industries freely without
governmental interference. The New
York Eveniag Post and New York Sun take
t4Ic view VI tAiS
defensible measure as that we have quoted
from the Republican. The Sun points out
that while the measure provides that
dealers in futures shall be taxed for the
supposed benefit of the farmers it is really
enacted for the benefit of the great North
western millers. To the "moral' argu-
ment of Senator PETER against Transitions
in futures as gambling, the Sun says:
II q farmer. either from optimism of tempera-
ment, or a roseate view of the prospects of live
stock, or an expectation OF vituiine scarcity,
fuses to sell calf to a butcher today and holds
that calf for a rise, is that farmer not gambling
in futures? Ii q farmer mortgages his farm or q
planter his cotton crop, IL not such a mortgage
a speculation in futures? Is not every bargain,
every acceptance or refusal of price for a GER
ts1n commodity, bit of gambling7 Somebody
will probably lose by that bargain that refusal
to make a bargain. Each party is gambling
that the price OF that commodity will or will
not 90 up subsequent to the bargain or the re-
fusal to make one. All business contains the
element OF chance, and whether the subject of
any particular transaction be an existing a
non-existing amount OF certain commodity
makes no difference. Mr.. PETER might, in fact,
object with just as much reason to the substitu-
ton of checks for money.
knowledge, capital. foresight will always be
great. and in the long the greatest factors in
business, but the element of chance can not be
eliminated; nor Is that element the main ele-
rent in transactions in options. Only the
ignorant speculator, blindly rushing into the
market, trusts all. 20 chance.