288 
Gambling in Farm Produce. 
option of selecting any clay in J une for the delivery of the com- 
modity. It is precisely the same with a future, and thus, so far 
as the rules of the corn exchanges are observed, there is no dif- 
ference in effect between an option and a future. Moreover, by 
whichever name the contract is called, there is the same oppor- 
tunity of abuse, and the opponents of the system declare that 
settlements are made in the great majority of instances without 
any delivery of the produce nominally dealt with in the contract. 
In Senator Washburn’s Anti-Option Bill, which was passed 
by the Senate in the last session of Congress, the following 
definitions appear : — 
1. That for the purpose of this Act the word “option ” shall be under- 
stood to mean any contract or agreement whereby a party thereto, or any 
party for whom or on whose behalf such contract or agreement is made, 
contracts to have or give, to himself or another, the option to buy or sell at 
a future time any grain or other commodity mentioned in Section 3 of this 
Act. 
2. That for the purposes of this Act the word “ future ” shall be under- 
stood to mean any contract or agreement whereby a party agrees to buy or 
agrees to sell and deliver at a future time to another party any articles 
mentioned in Section 3 of this Act, when at the time of making such 
contract or agreement the party so agreeing to make such delivery, or the 
party for whom he acts as agent, broker, or employ 6, in making such con- 
tract or agreement, is not at the time of making the same the owner of the 
articles so contracted and agreed to be delivered, or unless the articles so 
contracted to be sold and delivered shall subsequently be actually delivered 
to the purchaser for manufacture or consumption. 
Now, as already intimated, an option as here defined is not 
openly recognised by any corn exchange or board of trade in the 
United States. It is to be presumed, however, that those who 
drafted the Bill had reason to believe that such contracts were 
common, or they would not have thought it necessary to legislate 
against them. 
The articles named in the Bill are “ wheat, corn (maize), oats, 
rye, barley, cotton, and all other farm products. Also pork, 
lard, and all other hog products.” It must not be understood, 
however, that all these commodities are dealt with under the 
option system. The object was, no doubt, to make the section 
comprehensive, so as to prevent the system from extending. 
The following are lists of the commodities dealt with under the 
system in question : — America : wheat, maize, oats, cotton, 
coffee, sugar, pork, bacon, lard, and petroleum. England : 
wheat, maize, cotton, beet sugar, coffee, tea, silk, and silver. 
Iron, tin, and copper warrants also come under the same system. 
Before proceeding to deal in detail with the recognised op- 
tion and future system, I will briefly mention some of the worst 
abuses into which it has degenerated in connection with what 
