The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, June 13, 1921, Page 13

R IRERSE AE YTy - Grain Exchanges Fight for Existence - Gamblers in Futures Believed to Have Been Put Permanently on Defenswe— The Lantz and Tmcher Bills and Their Chances Mr. Stevens is a grain.market’ reportex for several uews- papers and is in daily, wuch wnth the gram exchanges . BY HENRY STEVENS . HE gram exchanges recently won a victory in the passage of the so-called Minnesota . “anti-grain-gambling” law, which .in fact does more to le_galize questionable trading in futures than .to prohibit them. They-had previously killed the Gapper bill in congress, which sought to place a prohibitive tax on grain gambling. But the fight agamst the exchanges has been renewed with L new vxgor, and today the time-honored practices of “the grain pits are really menaced with extinction. .~ The Illmms legislatute at thls writing is “ex- pected to pass the Lantz bills, aimed at the grain - gamblers, particularly the Chicago Board of Trade, " the largest exchange in “the "country. And the “Tincher bill in congress, to regulate the exchanges ‘and trading in futures, appears to have a much . better ehance than its predecessor, the Capper bill, ‘ever had. Both these new moves on behalf of the falmer ~ and a fairer market place for grain may fail. The defenders . of the system as it exists have " more than once wriggled out of as tight a fix. But it is safe to say that the grain ex- changes have been perma- nently put on the defensive, and that the failure of the Lantz and Tincher bills, if they -do fail, will be followed by a new attempt of agriculture .to get justice. And the new at- tempt, like the present, will have a better chance of success than its predecessors. It is “even doubtful if substantial concessmns by the exchanges in attempting themselves to eliminate the worst features of their practices, will head off . drastic legislation within the next two or three years, al- though the exchanges may be successful in their fight against the present bills. The Leader has commented on the inadequacy of the re- cent Minnesota so-called anti- gambling act. The other day Chicago Board of Trade mem- bers clinched the argument against it when they announced that should the Lantz bills pass the Illinois legislature, the Chicago brokers would _move a part of their business- to Minnesota. But_where will they move to if the Tmcher bill -~ passes congress? “ 3 Two bills are before the Illi-. . nois legislature, known as the’ Lantz bills, which, if passed, will place the board of trade under the state de-- partment of agncultule and prohlblt gamblmg in . ‘grain. LANTZ BILLS DESCRIBED THEY' HAVE REAL TEETH The first places the Chicago gram exchange, the largest gram marketing system in the country, un- . der the.-jurisdiction of the state agricultural de- partment It already has passed the. senate. It will shortly come before the house; and is reported to have excellent chances for passage. bill, which provides that in all future trading con- tracts the seller-shall be in actual or potential pos- session of grain, and.shall contemplate actual de-: livery, will shortly. be given a test vote in the senate. The second of the Lantz bills, which i is prlmanly., to eliminate gambling] is patterned after the orig- inal bill which was introduced in the Minnesota leg- ‘islature at its recent session. But the Minnesota bill was amended after a hard fight until the “teeth” were drawn out. The same hue and cry raised in Minnesota by the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and the Duluth The second _ Board of Trade lS being raised in Tlinois by the Chicago Board of Trade. When the first of the Lantz bills passed the senate the fireworks started. Now a battle is being waged with the forces of the board “of “trade; the grain gamblers and the banks on one sxde, arrayed against the farmers, the large - cash “grain merelants and practically the entire _producing” element ‘of the country. . The menace.-of “Townley and the Nonpartlsanv -league” is being used as an argument in an effort to scare the backers of the Lantz bill into discard- mg it. It is said to be a Townley bill by its—ene- _ mies, who claim its enactment will bring about “Townleyism.” But the Nonpartisan leagie has no . olgamzatlon in Hlinois, and Townley had no hand’ in drawing the measure. Perhaps the blggest factor the board of trade has to fight and which-is giving it all sorts of trouble, is the large cash grain interests and elevator men who are opposed to future trading. It has been charged openly in newspapers and on the ex- changes that agents of the elevator and cash grain interests, namely, Armour, Rosenbaum and others, | A SYSTEM WHICH HITS THEM BOTH aAMBL! NG SYSTEM John Baer drew this cartoon to illustrate a statement by Senator E. F. Ladd of North Dakota, showing that the people of Europe, for whom various relief associations are now asking dona- tions, suffer with the American farmer on account of the grain gambling system. Ladd points out that grain dealers-sold the export crop of 1920 to Europe at prices averag- ing 33 cents more per bushel than Europe was charged for the 1919 crop, yet the farmer. got. 70 cents a bushel less for the 1920 crop than he got for the'1919 crop. The farmer was short- : Achanged .Says Ladd, $240, 000,000, and starvmg Europe did not get the be‘nefit of the savmg—-—the grain’ gamblers dld. ~e. "had men workmg throughout the state in favor of the Lantz bills. The board of trade claims that it has been double-crossed by the big elevator inter- * ests, ‘'who, it” clalms, want future trading abolished - (which" will: occdr, they say, if the second Lantz bill“becoimes a 1aw), to enable them to control the - grain. sxtuatwn w1th their enormous resources and’ facilities., With a battle thus being waged within, the ‘ranks of ‘the members of’ the largest trading exchange in the country, the importance of the fight can readily be realized. The board of trade claims that the second Lantz bill will eliminate it as a market fac- tor and will: force-it to either move to some other state or- to- transact its future trading through some other exchanges, preferably Minneapolis, Kansas City and Milwaukee. This is a funny ar- gument, as the claim has been made that gamblmg plays no part.in the mampulatxon of the grain mar- ket. If the board -of trade is put out of business by anti-gambling acts it will be clear evidence that gambling does play the most important role. In other words, it would be proof positive that future trading is based on gambling, as the second Lantz bill merely provides that the seller shall be in pos- ' PAGE FOURTEEN on “puts” and “calls.” - bling” in the pits?. session of the grain, and shall contemplate actual delivery. The Tincher bill -is now before -the senate at Washington, having-been passed by the house over the protests of the Minneapolis Chamber of Com- merce_and the Chicago Board of Trade. This bill prmndes for- government control over dealmgs in grain, .including wheat, corn, oats, barley, rye, flax and sorghum, and levies a tax of 20 cents a bushel BILL BEFORE CONGRESS CREATES “CONTRACT MARKETS” The tax of 20 cents is also’ to apply to all other transactions, unless jmade in“a “contract. market,” so designated by the secretary of agheulture or “where the seller is at the time of the making of . the contract the owner, of the actual physical prop- erty covered thereby, ér in tage either: party.to the ‘contract is the owner or renter of land on which ‘the same is to be grown, or is an assocxatlon of such owners or renters of land.” The bill also forces the exchanges to accept to . membership farmers’ co-oper- ative associations. This provi- sion was suggested by Secre- tary Wallace as .one of the amendments, - and -has proven very distasteful to the grain gamblers. + - _The "row ‘over the Tincher " bill centers “chiefly on section 5, which defines what a board of trade must do to be desig- nated 'a “contract market.” «-All exchanges must become - “contract markets” to do busi- mness. The section follows: . “Section §. That the secre- - tary of agriculture.is hereby authorized and directed to des- ignate boards of trade as ‘con- tract markets’ when,. and _only when, such boards of trade comply with the followmg con- . ditions and, requirements;: “(A)~When located at a ter- mmal market upon, which cash ‘grain-is-sold _in’ sufficient vol- ume and under such conditions as fairly to reflect the general value hetweén the - various grades of grain. “(B) When the govermng board thereof provides for:the makmg and filmg of a record and reports, in accordance with -the rules and regulations and in such manner and form as may be prescribed by the sec-' retary of agriculture, showing - the details and terms of all transactions entered into. by ... the board. or .the members L ST L thereof, either in cash grain or for future dehvery, and which Senator - 'record shall at .all times be open to the inspection of any representatives of the ‘United States depart- ment of- agriculture and United States department of justice, and such record shall be ‘in- ‘permanent " form and shall show the parties. to all such con- tracts, any assignments or transfers of. such con- tracts, the parties to the terms:-of. such asgign- ments and the manner in which-said contract is fulfilled; discharged or terminated.”~ - While this bill, if passed.in ifs. pre,sent form, wxll .be as stringent as the Lantz bill in Illinois, the grain gamblers have less present fear for it, as its final strength lies in the hands ‘of the sectetary of agriculture, from whom they do mnot anticipate any . drastic move as long as the Harding administration remains in office." As to the Minnesota “joker” bill, which' gdes into effect August 1, is it going to stop gambling? ‘Ask a member ~of the ‘Minneapolis Chamber of ‘Com- merce that question and then watch him laugh. - Are steps bemg ‘taken by the Minneapolis Cham- "ber of Commerce and-the Duluth Board of Trade, as a result of the Minnesota act, to prevent “gam- If they. are, they are not ap- parent. Preparations to-control gambling in grain