The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-03-07
SPECULATION IN FUTURES.
The President Of GOtham'S Cotton EX-
change Gives His Views.

He Declares the Hatch Bill Prohibi-
tory, InquisitoriaI, Obnoxious and
Unoonstitutional-The Present Bill
as Objectionable as Any Heretofore
roposed-Members of the Produce
Exchange Also Protest Against It.
Washington. March 6.-The hearing
on the Hatch "anti-option" bill were con-
tinued before the House committee on
agriculture to-day.
j. O. Bloss, president of the New York
Cotton Exchange, spoke against the meas
ure, characterizing it as prohibitory, in
quisitorial, obnoxious and unconstitu-
tlonal, and not intended for revenue pur-
poses, but simply to suppress the business
which it proposed to regulate He felt that
there was very little to say that had not
been said heretofore He called attention
to the testimony given on the subject be-
fore the various congressional committees
and to the speeches of senators and
members against it on the floor Any one
who had studied the subject through the
means ef the testimony referred to, could
hardly fail TO reach the conclusion that,
Notwithstanding the opinion of certain
people that the system of trading known
as contracts for the future delivery of
certain products, has a depressing effect
upon the articles so traded in, the coun-
ter assertion is as fully proven; and in ad-
dition thereto, the far greater fact be-
comes apparent and one that Outweighs
all others in the discussion, that any leg
isAtion looking to its overthrow and sup
preston is outside the power of congress,
is unconstitutional and is an infringement
of the rights of the citizen to make con
tracts, which have been declared legal by
state and United States courts.
THE NEW BILL.
The claim may be made he said, that
as the present bill is different in its
character from those that have preceded
1t, the testimony heretofore referred to,
is not applicable to this bill: but to such
claim, it may be said that, though the
present bill, is in some respects, quite
different from the others, it nevertheless
contains the same spirit of prohibition
and Suppression of speculative transac-
tions as any of its predecessors, and the
taxes proposed are such as are calculated
to obstruct business of this character
which business is considered legitimate;
so that, as a whole, the present bill is
quite as obnoxious and Objectionable as
any measure heretofore proposed.
AN EFFORT TO DISCRIMINATE.
An effort had apparently been made in
the bill under consideration to distinguish
between what the friends of the measure
are pleased to term Legitimate" and
"illegitimate" transactions. The earlier
bills upon the subject practically prohib-
tied the selling for future delivery,
whether the property was owned or not.
In the present bill those restrictions
are mouihed somewhat; neverthe-
less, the restrictions and inquisi-
torial features imposed upon even the
'legitimate' transactions are so great, to
say nothing of the so-called nominal"
tax imposed that even that character of
business is stihed. 1t was claimed that
the tax would produce revenue: but there
was no reason TO expect that such would
be the case. There could be none, as no
business would be done under such re-
strictions as the bill imposed. The pur-
pose of the bill was in no sense
in contemplation of or anticipatory
of securing revenue; neither was
there any desire per Sc to
regulate and obstruct what is
concededsto be legitimate business, from
which only could revenue be derived un-
der the bill; the sole purpose being to
suppress what is conceived to be ''illegiti-
mate" To his mind, this bill if it
should become a law, would fail to bene-
fit those in whose interest it was ostensi-
bly, put forth, it would interfere with
the free moyOment of the crops, and rem
der the cost of raw material to the ulti-
mate consumer much greater than at
present.
THE PRODUCE EXCHANGE HEARD FROM.
Mr.. Wendall, of the New York Pro
duce Exchange protested against the
passage of the bill. In his opinion it was
unconstitutional. If congress had the
right to pass such a law il was under the
taxing power given by the constitution.
Il the bill was passed under this clause
they should make il general and tax all
contracts made by merchants. Whenever
this sub ect came up it had a depressing
effect upon business, and made prices
lower
S. S. Marples, of the New York Pro
duce Exchange. also spoke against the
bill
H. B. Slaughter, of the Merchants
Exchange of ST Louis, protested against
the passage of the bill, or any similar
measure The bill was unjust, unwar-
ranted and was class legislation tending
to hamper free trading in the principal
agricultural products Of the country
j. W. Bass, of the Milwaukee Chamber
of Commerce, was against dealings in
options" but favored dealing in "fu-
lures, as he considered the latter beneti-
cial to the farmer.
Mr. Hatch dem, of Missouri, said that
he considered legitimate speculat tion the
life blood of trade, but thought the sys-
TEN Of puts and calls" or options a
poison and detrimental to business in
tercsts.
The committee adjourned until to-
morrow.
COGaLAN FRUSTRATED
Ornr,rrnrl, md NWnrr1r Cnrnne1 Him 70