Tensas gazette. [volume] (St. Joseph, La.) 1886-current, 1908-04-03

market merely facilitates the law of averages
by facilitating the channel Of legitimate
trade.
SO much for the beneficial phases of the
modern cotton market.
In the course of time certain evils have
developed in connection with the cotton
market. They are not fundamental. and may
be eliminated without harm to anybody. In
time thsy would eliminate themselves
through natural evolution.
Before the days of an open market, which
Is possible only under a system of future
trading, the factor or cotton merchant prac-
tically owned the farmer-loanea him money.
sold him supplies and mules, and bought all
his cotton. The farmer could not sell to any
body else. There was no competitive buy
ing. The factor or merchant charged big
commissions for handling the cotton, high
interest on money loaned, and big profits on
all supplies advanced, and the farmer was
helpless because the merchant held him in
his grasp.
To-day the future delivery system enables
the farmer to sell whenever the market suits
him, to the highest bidder ito the man who
needs the cotton most) and for cash, and buy
his supplies for cash IL he so desires from
the merchant who sells cheapest. This Is
possible in an open and free market only.
Through competitive buying of cotton, the
merchants commission has been reduced to
say so cents bale from about $500 a bale
before future trading existed. In an open
market there can be no trust control Of
prices, as there is in tobacco, iron, sugar
and cattle. The producers of these latter
products can sell only to the trust and at
prices named by the trust. Cotton and grain
producers can sell to a thousand independ-
ent buyers whenever they want to.
The evils of speculation, in so far as the
producer is concerned, are more fancied
than real.
A law should be passed prohibiting en-
ployees from buying. and selling futures
without the permission OF their empl oyers.
Trustees of trust funds should also come un-
der the ban. All unfair practices should be
prohibited. But the basic welfare OF the
producer is injured the moment the law says
that any man who has the right to exercise
his prerogaiive as an American citizen and
wAo wants to buy cotton shall not buy it, and
That Is exactly what has happened in Texas
under the Mayfield BILL in Mississippi under
the Boddie law and in Georgia under the
Boykin measure and in other Southern states
where similar laws have been passed.
AS the matters now stand, both the farmer
and the spinner may avoid speculation by
paying the middleman to take all risk of
price changes. Under an anti-future trad
ing law both the farmer and the spinner
would have to run dangerous speculative
risks, or submit to trust control of prices,
or do business thro gh New York and Liver
pool, markets which are not SO friendly to
cotton as In New Orleans.
As matters stand the little farmer can and
does market his cotton to the same identical
advantage-poand for pound and grade for
,grade-as the big farmer.
Under restricted market system the rich
farmer might get all he as'entitled to. but
the poor farmer certainly would get only
| what somebody else wanted him to have.
Very truly
/