Gambling in Farm Produce. 
309 
to give for the wheat. In short, the attack is upon precisely 
those abuses of the future trading system which the Anti-Option 
Bill prohibits. This explanation is necessary in passing judg- 
ment upon the controversy which has been given in a brief form 
in the preceding portion of this article. 
With respect to the assertion that the principal grain crops 
of the United States could not be moved in the autumn without 
the aid of the option system, Mr. Davis has sufficiently disposed of 
it by showing that only a very small proportion of this grain comes 
under the system. His opponents rejoin to the effect that, although 
none of the wheat which does not grade up to No. 2 is sold in 
options, those who purchase it sell options of graded wheat by 
way of hedging, and that if they could not do this they would 
not be able to carry the great bulk of the ungraded grain through 
the winter, unless they could buy it at a sufficiently low price 
to protect themselves against risks. This is by far the most 
important argument in favour of the option system. If exa- 
mined, however, it will be found to be inconsistent with other 
statements made by those who use it. If an elevator company 
buy a million bushels of ungraded wheat, what is to prevent 
them from selling it for delivery months ahead at fixed prices 
to different buyers who want it ? They could sell it by 
sample, or as an inferior grade, as they actually do sell it when 
it is sold for delivery. As possessors of the wheat, they would 
be entitled under the Anti-Option Bill to sell it for future 
delivery to anyone. Why should it be necessary for them to 
sell, nominally, graded wheat which they have not got, under 
the option system ? If delivery be the essential feature of every 
future contract, as the defenders of the option system pretend, 
why cannot these holders of ungraded wheat sell futures of 
what they possess and can deliver, as well as futures of what 
they do not possess, and yet, according to the gentlemen 
referred to, will be bound to deliver ultimately ? There cannot 
be any reason for their preference for the latter, except 
that they will not be bound to deliver it at all. In an 
ordinary season America grows no more wheat now than she 
produced twelve or thirteen years ago, when the option system 
had made very little headway ; and if the grain crops could be 
moved then without the new system, why should it be necessary 
at the present time ? 
As to the statement that elevator companies, millers, and 
speculators would pay less than they pay now for wheat to hold 
through the winter, if they could not protect themselves by 
means of options, the fact is clear that they pay very much 
less now than they paid when they had not the advantage of the 
