The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-11-19
TALKS ON COTTON CONTRACTS
EX-PRESIDENT NEW YORK EN-
CHANGE IN COLUMBIA.
Neville Says Smith-Lever Bill and
State Anti-futures Law Bar Way.

Columbia, Nov. 14.-GeOrge w.
Neville of the cotton firm Of Weld G.
Neville, New York, and ex-president
of the New York cotton exchange, was
in Columbia last night, on his way
to Charleston, and while here was ask
ed for his views i'm regard to the pro-
posed certification and delivery of cot
ton by the New York exchange in
Southern cities. The Chamber of
Commerce Of Columbia has arranged
to send delegation to New York to
discuss this suggestion and ascertain
if there be likelihood Of it's adoption,
having been chosen to represent the
interests Of Columbia.
Mr.. Neville expressed the opinion
that the adoption by the exchange Of
the proposed method might in certain
circumstances be Of immense COM
mercial value to Columbia. But"
said he, before it could receive Sc
rious consideration by the exchange
it seems to me that there are certain
serious obstacles now in the way to be
removed.
1.-The first of these is the Smith
Lever bill, now pending in congress,
requiring that in all contracts for the
future delivery of cotton the govern
ment standards shall be adopted, in
case the cotton is delivered. The
standards are nine white grades, and
no tinged or stained cotton could be
delivered. These standards are based
lands and the great bulk of the cot
ton produced in South Carolina, in
deed, nearly all Of it, is. of course, up
lands The necessary consequence Of
the passage of the Smith-Lever bill
would be the absolute prevention Of
the New York cotton exchange deal
ing in South Carolina cotton.
"A second objection said Mr..
Neville, lis the presence in the statute
books of South Carolina. as we'll as in
those of various other States of the
cotton belt, of laws making the deal
ing in cotton futures criminal Of
fense. The New York cotton ex-
change is corporation chartered un-
der the laws of New York State. It's
operations. according to legal opinion,
are not of the nature of interstate
commerce, but if the exchange should
admit the delivery of cotton, under it's
contracts, at Columbia or other
Southern points, that might bring it's
operations within the interstate COM
merce provisions and might, too, place
them in violation of it's specific rights
and duties under it's charter, endan-
gering the charter itself.
These obstacles" Mr.. Neville con-
tinued, "it would seem, require to be
removed before the extension of the
methods Of the exchange, as suggest
ed, could be hopefully entertained
LAS to how Columbia might be
beneficially affected, were the extern
sion made, that question may be an
swered by recalling recent history. In
1910 when bulls believed that the
supply of cotton would not be sufi-
cient for the worlds demand, about
$4,000 bales of cotton, nearly 10
per cent of the whole crop, was ac-
tually shipped to New York and there
stored in warehouses. This cotton
came from every part of the cotton
producing region. Were the obstacles
mentioned out Of the way for the
adoption Of the proposed delivery in
Southern cities and a similar condi-
ton to that Of 1910 should come to
pass, the shipment to and storing in
Columbia of considerable proportion
of nearly million bales would be of
obvious and great commercial profit
TO Columbia. Freights would be saw
ed and farmers and Southern spinners,
too, would be greatly benefited.
Medntlfne, were the functions UI
the cotton exchange and the contract
for future delivery generally under
stood, the prejudice in which they are
held by many persons would, l think.
speedily disappear. Those functions
are chiefly to insure the cotton mer-
chant, spinner or producer against
loss by the fluctuations of the mar
ket. The contract for future delivery
enables the Southern merchant SELL
ing thousand bales of cotton for
actual delivery to spinner to buy
against ii a contract for the future
delivery of cotton on some cotton ex-
change. IL makes possible the dis