CHAPTER XII
.
“CORNERS” AND THEIR EFFECT ON VALUES.
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON “CORNERS” AND “FUTURES.”—SPECULATION BENEFICIAL TO THE COUNTRY AT LARGE.—A REGULATION OF VALUES, AND AN IMPORTANT AGENT IN THE PREVENTION OF PANICS.-“CORNERS” IN ALL KINDS OF BUSINESS.—HOW A. T. STEWART MADE “CORNERS.”—ALL IMPORTING FIRMS DEAL IN “FUTURES.”—LEGISLATION AGAINST “CORNERS” WOULD STOP ENTERPRISE AND CAUSE STAGNATION IN BUSINESS.—ONLY THE CONSPIRATORS THEMSELVES GET HURT IN “CORNERS.”—THE BLACK FRIDAY “CORNER.”—SPECULATION IN GRAIN BENEFICIAL TO CONSUMERS.
The New York Stock Exchange is organized after the same manner as a social club, such as the Union League, the Union or the Manhattan, and not under a special charter from the Legislature. Hence it is protected from the interference of that honorable body.
Although various attempts have been made, from time to time, at Albany, to levy taxes upon the transactions of the Exchange, and to interfere with the business of speculation and investment in many other ways, these legislative designs have hitherto been happily frustrated.
Shortly after the memorable “corner” in Hannibal & St. Jo., in 1881, another attempt was made by the Legislature to force Wall Street matters under the jurisdiction of Albany lobbyists and “scalpers.”
The newspaper articles on the subject of the “corner” had attracted the attention of the Legislature then in session, and naturally suggested to some of the wiseacres of that dignified and incorruptible body that the “corner” afforded an excellent opportunity, when the public mind was excited on the subject, to raise an outcry against the shocking immorality of such huge speculations.
A Senate Committee on “corners” and “futures” was therefore appointed, and various Wall Street men were summoned to appear before it, and give their testimony on this interesting subject. I had the honor of being one of the witnesses cited. I promptly obeyed the subpœna in preference to taking the risk of being hauled up for contempt and sent to durance vile. I appeared before the Committee at the Metropolitan Hotel, and not only answered all questions put to me, without any fashionable lapses of memory, after the manner of certain other financiers, but I regaled the Committee with a little dissertation on the subject of investigation. I had letters from members of the Legislature afterwards complimenting me for having made the points very clear. So I can say, “Praise from Sir Hubert is praise indeed,” and therefore I am encouraged to reproduce that effort in this volume, not so much from an intense desire to go down to posterity as a successful orator, as from a disposition to record my approval, in more permanent form, of the soundness of the legislative judgment on my explanation of “corners.”
When the applause had subsided, I spoke as follows:
“Gentlemen of the Committee on Corners and Futures: Speculation is a method now adopted for adjusting differences of opinion as to future values, whether of products or securities. This is more common now than in former years because the facilities for procuring information have increased with the greater intelligence and celerity with which all business is now conducted, and also from the greater rapidity with which such information can be transmitted by telegraph and cable.
“In former years the results of a crop were known only when it came to the market. Now almost everything affecting its future value is known with a fair degree of accuracy before the crop is harvested. This advanced information naturally becomes the subject of speculative transactions which could not have existed in former times.
“Speculation brings into play the best intelligence as to the future of values. It has always two sides. The one that is based principally on the facts and conditions of the situation wins in the end, and the result of the conflict is the nearest possible approach to correct values. The consequences of speculation are thus financially beneficial to the country at large.
“Speculation for a fall in prices is based upon the presumption of an over-supply. If it succeeds, the production of the particular product is checked until prices recover, and in the meantime production is diverted to articles less abundant. Thus speculation proves a regulator both of values and production. Speculation for a rise in prices is based upon a presumption of scarcity or short supply, and its direct effect is to quicken production and restore the equilibrium of prices.
“‘Corners’ usually come from running speculation to an excessive length, by which the seller becomes responsible for deliveries beyond what he can possibly make. He thereby places himself at the mercy of those with whom he has made the contracts. These exigencies chiefly affect the speculators themselves, and the community at large but little.
“Extreme prices usually grow out of them, but they are only momentary, and have small effect upon regular or cash transactions, which sympathize very remotely with these temporary and artificial quotations.
“Speculation is not to be judged by its occasional excesses, but by the general effects which the foregoing considerations show to be beneficial. It regulates production by instantaneously advancing prices when there is a scarcity, thereby stimulating production, and by depressing prices when there is over-production. It thus becomes one of the most beneficial agents in the business world for the prevention of panics.
“Speculation, moreover, makes a market for securities that otherwise would not exist. It enables railroads to be built through the ready sale of their bonds, thus adding materially to the wealth of the whole country, and opening a more profitable market to labor. In this it becomes the forerunner of enterprise and material prosperity in business.
“There are ‘corners’ in all kinds of business as well as in Wall Street speculation. Mr. A. T. Stewart, the great dry goods merchant, made more ‘corners’ during the latter part of his life than half the rest of the business community put together. He did this mainly by contracting for the entire and exclusive production of certain classes of goods, and as such goods could only be bought at his establishment he had a close ‘corner’ in them, and accordingly put on his own prices.
“The greater portion of all the large mercantile firms do business in the same way. And all the importing firms deal in futures. They sell goods by sample, agreeing to deliver them at a future stated period, varying from thirty days to twelve months. In the meantime the goods have to be manufactured, and in many instances purchasers have to wait until they are grown, and imported thousands of miles.
“If it were not for the support which comes from the ‘short’ interest in grain and the general activity created thereby in times of depression, which come periodically in this country, it would be in the power of the large speculative grain dealers in Europe to manipulate prices downward, and purchase our products every year, on raids, at prices much under the cost of production.
“When we sell to Europe we must do so at a profit, or our transactions don’t help to enrich the country.
“Another curious thing about ‘corners’ is that the people who organize and manipulate them generally get most hurt in the enterprise. This was the case with the ‘corner’ referred to in Hannibal and St. Joseph. Mr. John Duff, of Boston, was the man in whose prolific brain that ‘corner’ originated, and the result to him was financial ruin. The stock ran up to 350, though the short account amounted to only about 1,200 shares, and the ‘shorts’ had to settle at 280.
“The result was similar in the ‘corner’ in Northwest in 1872, manipulated by Jay Gould. The stock was started at 80 and it ran up to 280. It then reacted to the former figure. I believe Jay Gould was alone in that deal, and it came pretty near crushing him, in spite of his incomparable capacity for wriggling out of a tight place.
“Patents are ‘corners’ protected by law. The inventor has a monopoly for seventeen years in his invention against all the world, and this gives him a right to make and sell the article covered by his patent, often at a profit of several hundred per cent. on the original cost, and on the price it would bring if placed in competition in the open market, like railroad stocks and grain.
“If it is the intention of the Legislature of this State to stop enterprise in business, then your Committee is undertaking to accomplish that work in the right way, but I think your success would be a public calamity.”
I doubt the expediency of either undertaking to regulate enterprise by law or to choke off competition by the law-making power. The result would be woeful stagnation in business. It would crush the motives for commercial activity and depress the creative energies of prosperity.
The law of supply and demand is the best regulator.
Congress attempted to suppress speculation in gold during the war, and as soon as the act was passed prohibiting such dealings, the premium on gold advanced 100 per cent. This so much terrified the wise statesmen who concocted this sweeping measure of financial reform, that they immediately displayed much more wisdom in hastening to have the bill repealed.
The simple reason that such laws will not work in practice is that where there is a will there is generally a way to evade them. This is the case with the very best of such laws that can possibly be framed. Take the usury laws for example. The methods of getting around these are numerous, and there is practically no limit to the rate of interest that can be exacted except the conscience of the lender, which is frequently very elastic. Daniel O’Connell said he could drive a coach and six through any act of Parliament. Jake Sharp was also of opinion that he could run a double-track horse-car railroad through the best act that could be framed by any Albany Legislature. Jake was checked in his career at considerable trouble and expense, but his case illustrated that the rule referred to holds good generally in legislation.
The fact, however, that it seldom happens that anybody gets badly hurt in “corners,” except the conspirators themselves, is sufficient protection for the general public, and should set the minds of legislators at rest, if they mean to do legitimate business in their law-making capacity.
The conspirators in “corners” are usually left high and dry without any market for their fictitious values, and the “corner” very frequently has the effect of putting the property out of the speculative market for a long time. The fate of Han. & St. Jo. is a warning to those who manipulate “corners.” The stock was seldom quoted for months afterwards.
Take the case of Black Friday for example. It was most disastrous to the
## parties intimately connected with it. It came near proving Gould’s ruin,
and he has not got over the moral effect of it yet. The probability is it will be an heirloom in his family, a skeleton in the Gould closet for generations to come. Gould and Black Friday have become synonymous in the minds of many people, and the further from Wall Street the more the distinction becomes confounded.
In making these remarks I have no intention of throwing any reflection upon Mr. George Gould, who seems to be a very promising young man for a rich man’s son. His careful education has, no doubt, done much to counteract the drawbacks incident to the sons of wealthy men to which I have referred more fully in another part of this book. His maternal training, I understand, has been of the most exemplary kind. This will go far to offset the disadvantages to a business career, which the accident of his birth in luxurious surroundings, according to my theory, otherwise entails. If his brain is composed of the genuine plastic material out of which the craniums of successful financiers are made, he may learn to forget that he has been nursed in the lap of luxury, and look back with due respect to the hole whence his father was digged and the rock whence he was hewn. He may have brains enough, possibly, to reflect with more pride on that ingenious mousetrap that first brought his father into prominence, than the gew-gaws of the gilded palace in Fifth avenue, the luxuries of the handsome parlors and rich conservatories at Irvington, and the gorgeous trappings of his father’s yacht and palace cars. I have, therefore, great hopes that George will be a conspicuous exception to the rule I have propounded elsewhere regarding rich men’s sons.
When a large mercantile firm buys up goods in any line so that nobody else has the same goods, it then has a “corner” in these goods.
“Corners” in goods differ from “corners” in Wall Street in regard to their influence on the organizers. They don’t act like a boomerang as the Wall Street “corners” mostly do. The “corner” is sometimes sustained during the life of the manipulator, as in the case of Mr. Stewart.
The successors of the great operators sometimes maintain it, but in this instance Judge Hilton made a signal failure, though in some respects he is a far abler man than Stewart was. Yet, he had not the genius, for working “corners,” of his eminent predecessor. He is, probably, so well learned in the law that he has too much inclination to go around the “corners.”
One thing is certain, very few of these merchants can become wealthy except through the medium of “corners.” It is by these peculiar methods that nearly all large fortunes are amassed in their line, and in a perfectly legitimate manner, too, whatever casuists and hair-splitting moralists may say or think about the matter. The tendency to make “corners” seems to be interwoven in our business methods, and to play an important part in the struggle for existence. So I don’t see what we are going to do about it without a radical change in that compendium of the best political wisdom that the world has ever seen. I refer to the Constitution of the United States. All the acumen and sophistry which the most astute Philadelphia lawyer could bring to bear upon it has hitherto failed to show that there is anything in this wonderful document opposed to the liberty of making “corners.”
As Mr. Gladstone has truly said: “This document is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”
I hold there is nothing in the Constitution opposed to the freedom of making “corners,” and that all the evils resulting from these speculative inventions can be met and counteracted by business methods, and the laws regulating the ordinary concerns of life without resorting to any rigid or special methods.
To dispose of “corners” or abolish them on the large scale to which I have alluded would presume an entire revolution in our social system, and to attack them piecemeal, as the Legislature frequently does, involves a very suspicious kind of discrimination, and is at variance with the spirit of the Constitution. In fact it often amounts to a kind of thinly-disguised blackmail.
The truth is, that it is almost impossible to legislate against “corners” without aiming a fatal blow at speculation itself, which, as I have shown, is a vital principle in the regulation of values, the stability of business, and the prevention of panics.
I believe the men of most experience, not only in Wall Street, but in other departments of finance and commerce, will bear me out in the statement that a market where even values are considerably inflated by speculation, is more desirable than a period of depression. The result, in the long run, is the greatest good to the greatest number. I don’t believe that the ghost of Jeremy Bentham himself could rise up and consistently condemn this statement.
I believe that speculation in grain and provisions is materially beneficial to consumers, and that the latter are better off, one year with another, and less liable to be menaced with periodical famines, than if there were no speculation in these necessities of life.
Before leaving this prolific theme of “corners” I wish to say a few words about my own experience in that line. The only “corner” in which I have ever been materially hurt during my long business experience was one manipulated by the State of Georgia.
This Sovereign State issued and granted altogether about eight millions of bonds, all bearing the great seal, properly signed and legally issued for full value. I advanced over two million dollars in good money on a part of these bonds. Shortly after this transaction, the State of Georgia ascertained through a garbled report of a committee sent to this city by the Georgia Legislature, that all these bonds were held outside of her own borders. The Legislature then passed an act of repudiation, thereby reducing the value of the bonds from par to that of waste paper. When I discovered that my little pile of two million dollars in what I considered good securities would no longer exchange for greenbacks, I had a very disagreeable sensation of having been “cornered” by the high toned and chivalrous representatives of the State of Georgia, which, through its lawmakers, claimed the sovereign right to do wrong to the citizens of a sister State.
In the Harlem “corner,” which is referred to in another place, contracts to deliver at 110 were settled at 179.
About three million dollars were taken out of the pockets of the bears. Several prominent houses went down in the struggle. The result of the “corner” was that the bulls were saddled with the entire capital stock of the property.
One broker, who had sold calls at 150 and was requested to fulfil his contracts when the stock had advanced to 250, was very much in the same position as Glendower’s spirits, which were called from the vasty deep but would not come. “I don’t see anything here,” he said, “about delivering. You can call, but I don’t mind it.”
There were two “corners” in Harlem. The Common Council was cornered in one and the Legislature in the other.
In the Rock Island “corner” the bulls bought 20,000 shares more than existed, and the price rose from 110 to 150.
London financiers have a fearful horror of “corners.” Hence the London Stock Exchange is very chary about listing our railroads, especially those with a moderate number of shares.
“Corners” are seldom profitable, and the parties connected with them can hardly escape getting badly hurt unless they are prepared to own and carry the entire property. Even in that event, it is usually put out of the speculative market for a considerable time.
The Hudson “corner” was one of the most successful. It paid a profit of 12 per cent. There was a profit of 4½ on the Rock Island “corner.”
The first “corner” of which there is any record in Wall Street was in Morris Canal, an old “fancy” now almost forgotten except for its “corner.” It had been forced upward as fancies frequently are, until it was far above its intrinsic value, and several operators began to sell “short.”
After this operation had gone on for some time a pool was formed to protect it, and the pool bought it all up and locked it up in a trunk. The operation was new to the Street and the bears were astounded, but when called upon to settle they became furious, and accused the manipulators of the “corner” of entering into a conspiracy. The “bulls” asked the “bears” why they had sold what they did not possess and could not procure.
The dispute was referred to the arbitration of the Board of Brokers, and that eminent body, then unsophisticated in the arts of speculation, took what seemed to them an equitable view of the case, and decided it in favor of the “shorts,” who, on the ground of conspiracy on the part of the clique, were relieved from fulfilling their obligations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
##