The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-05-29

committee caused considerable incon. yenience. This was the ostensible ex. cuse for the ruling in question. Never. | theless, the bylaws of the New York
 Cotton Exchange distinctiy provide thsi | cred complete until a duly. executed sgenlent. The still larger payments
 certificate. of course. to be based upon mittee In the face of the bylaws. the Board of Appeals of the New York Cot ton Exchange ruled in the latter part been passed by the assistant inspectors at the dock was later pronounced by the classification committee to be he- low any deliverable grade, it neverthe. certincsted stock. taking the lowest grade recognized by the Exchange. This arbitrary ruling of the Board of Appeals clearly was subversive of the it virtually made the assistant inspec- tor at the dock instead Of the classifi. cation committee, the final authority for the adEnission of the cotton into the
 Members of the Classification Com mittee. it should be said. while, obeying this ruling. of the Board of Appeals. did so. under protest. On the grade which in their opinion were below dc. liverable grade members Of the com. mittee noted that fact These Iiota. Of the following forms:
 Certihcate Issued under instructions from warehouse and delivery commit tee at meeting held March i4. 1907.
 ,non;a ons bare sL Tor S.e1 rtJ bslssJ under grade; lowest grade called for on contract in accordance with decision rendered by Board of Appeals.
 These protests were termed by mem hArE of fha Fla their "declaration of independence" l" One member said:
 The reason signed those slips with that notion was to defend myself thereafter for calling cotton grades that knew it was not" @
 This certification of cotton actually below tenderable grade is especially important because 1t was not due to the carelessness of the classification committee, or to the dishonesty of any tndlvidual employe, but. was the ex- precision of deliberate policy of one of the highest committees of the exchanRe which should have taken every pre- caution to protect the integrity of the contract: It has been argued that al- though the holder of a contract could De forced to accept such cotton he could in turn retender it at the false yaluatin. Obviously, this is no justf- hcation. On this ground the board of appeals might have ordered the class
 
 dust. Again, 1t has bean argued that the receiver, if dissatisfied, could make claim upon the inspection fund. But there was no ground, under this ruling, on which the committee could reverse It's decision. In any event the argu- ment clearly is improper. The in- spectton fund was intended to provide TOT genuine errors in classification and not to place a premium on the delib- crate certifcation of cotton clearly un-
 Members of the New York Cotton Exchange have also attempted to ex- cuse this extraordinary ruling of the board of appeals on the ground. that only a few hundred bales of rejected cotton were thus deliberately. allowed to go into the certified stock. They have further attempted to defend the classification of the exchange general ly on the ground that the amount of certified cotton which was really be- amount which, although tenderabIe, is or exceptionally low grade is but a small percentage of the total certified stock. They argue that the buyer of a tnsure s1s contract would therefore be in- dinerent to the possibility of receiv- ing some of this cotton. This. arRu- ment Is so absurd as hardly to cali for discussion It would be about as iogi- cal for man to say that he would be soldiers to be shot at simply because only portion of the guns were loaded Such cotton would unouestionably' ex- ert an influence upon the buyer out of all proportion to its actual amount relatives to the total stock. because he must take whatever the seller chooses to tender him. When the new man. agement of the New York Cotton Ex- change came into offlce, in June 1907, this practice of accepting cotton under the ruling of the board of appeals was promptly gtOpped.
 This ruling of the board of appeals has been emphasized because 1t illus- trates a more or less general tenden- cy of the officials of the New York Cot. ton Exchange to depart from conner. cial and equitable principles in the very Fundamental of their system. It l may easily be that larger quantities of cotton have been improperly graded | It New Orleans. Absolute integrity on the part of all individuals, can. not be hoped for. But there is no excuse for lack of integrity in the system itself. l large part of the complaint regard Ing over classification of cotton at New l York, however, is not necessarily com plaint against the system, but rather against its practical application by the committee; and the evils can largely be remedied by greater care and c0nscientiousness, without change in the system itself. Some pro- oosals for minor changes in the system ~N sed later.
 An especial reason why the New York Cotton Exchange should en- 1eavor to maintain the integrity of its Is that under the most 1 favorable circumstances the stock at New York is composed largely of the east desirable grades of the crop. The buyer of a contract in New York is at Ill times under serious disadvantage in this respect, and no effort should be spared to prevent incorrect or im- proper classification.
 Owing to the recent elimination of several of the lowest grades of cotton from the deliverable range at New York it seems reasonable to hope that many of the abuses formerly charged against classification in that market will not be repeated. Efforts have already been made to secure more &C., l curate grading of cotton, and, as the increased payments form the inspec- tion fund above noted indicate. such efforts have met with at least some de- gree of success.
 Objections Advanced Against Certi1-
 cate system in Principle.
 Aside from complaints of overclassi- fcation of cotton at New York, the certificate system itself, as employed in that market, is condemned by some a fiuda AnfallV fnrnrrAcf nriUHf-