292 
Gambling in Farm Produde. 
Statistician of his Department were strong supporters. The 
history of the attempt at legislation against the system may be 
briefly described. Two Bills have been before Congress. The 
first was originally prepared by Mr. August Post, Secretary of 
the National Farmers’ Alliance, by which body it was endorsed. 
It was introduced to Congress by Mr. Butter worth, and, on his 
retirement, Mr. Hatch of Missouri took charge ot the measure, 
with such good effect that it passed the House of Representatives 
in 1892 by a large majority, but failed to reach the Senate 
before the adjournment. Mr. Washburn, of Minnesota, intro- 
duced a similar measure in the Senate, and this was passed just 
before the end of the session, and sent to the House of Repre- 
sentatives. In order to obtain a hearing for it out of the 
regular order of business, it was necessary to obtain a majority 
of two-thirds. On a motion for the consideration of the Bill being 
put before the House, 172 members voted for it, and 124 against 
it. Thus the measure was shelved on account of the majority 
being insufficient for the suspension of the regular order of pro- 
ceedings in its favour ; but it is understood that it will be rein- 
troduced this year. There is very little difference between the 
two Bills. Both practically prohibit options and futures, as 
defined in almost similar terms, by requiring any dealer in these 
contracts to pay a licence of #1,000 per annum, and a tax of 
five cents per pound on the articles which are sold by weight, 
and twenty cents a bushel on those which are sold by measure. 
These taxes would be entirely prohibitory, as they are meant to 
be. The dealers are further requested to register themselves 
and all their transactions in options and futures ; and, in at least 
one of the Bills, they are required to keep their books in a speci- 
fied manner under the supervision of the revenue authorities. 
It is important to observe that neither of the Anti-option 
Bills would prohibit future contracts if the seller has the produce 
dealt in ; but there is some difference between the two in other 
respects. Under Mr. Washburn’s Bill the contract would not be 
a future as defined in the Bill — “ if the articles contracted to be 
sold and delivered shall subsequently be actually delivered to the 
purchaser for manufacture or consumption.” Thus, under this 
Bill, a person possessing a commodity can sell it to anyone for 
future delivery without restriction ; but if he has not the article 
in his possession, he may sell it and afterwards buy and deliver 
it only to a manufacturer or consumer — not to a speculator. It is 
provided in the Bill that it shall not apply to any contracts made 
with the United States, or any State, county, or municipality ; 
nor to the contracts made by farmers for the sale and delivery 
of goods in actual course of production by them. In Mr. Hatch’s 
