, 1874-02-08

FAtolb tuen LQafe Noud Do no 4GeatlonLn5 II
tho Board es to whether or not . receipt VIA:
regular. Whether this can be done bJ
+ licensing tue clcsntor-men under the statt
law, or requiring them to give bonds to 1ndem
nifty the holders OF tho receipts, il question.
LICENSING ELEVATORS.
Mr. Culver-I noticed thai THE TR1nuNE in ~
editorial recently, claimed that the requiring Of
license WIS Nh invasion Of private rights, ant
that the security intended to DO gained by d
loonse could be obtained il some other ~msn
ncr-
Reporter-That vas about the purport Of the
article
Mr. Culyer-Now take issue with The Ta1n.
uSE on that.
Mr. Narren--So do /.
Heporter-Pleasc state your position.
1Ir. Culyer-It eecnlb to mo to be an invasion
Of private rights for an individual COMPANY, or
combination Of companies to take property belong
ing many different parties, place it into store
beyond tho control, or even the Identification
Of the owners Of it, without first having obtained
lcaTu or license from some authority. What
right have to take grain belonging to yon, to
s1r. Wright, and to Mr. Warren, and place it
iu one common biu, SO that you cam
not idanhfy OF separate your property
and handle it as please, and charge what
pleass for 50 doing cannot see how the rights
OF wa1eLouseman arc invaded by according 10
him the authority, under certain just conditions,
restrictions, and requirements, to receive prop
erty from transportation companies belonging
to different. and perhaps unknown. parties. and
OF storing that property together in such man
ner. tt,at the ownore cannot identify it,
Tho security and protection Of those who, by
the necessities or nature of their business, are
compelled to coussn. to this manner of storing
Of gram, require the exaction from public ware
Louaemen certain requirements, and l CANNOT
SEQ apy invasion Of rights in prohibiting waro-
of different owners without their will
ing consent, and without compliance,
on the part of the wnrohousemen, with
reasonable requirements and penalties that may
DO prescribed by : Law that provides for and re-
quires the issue ct license before doing bust
each owner wns kept seperate and distinct by
itself, or if the owner was at liberty to store
with whom or when he might elect, and upon
such terms as he could best ba1gaiu for, as is
the case with other property and owners OF it,
then tho caBo would be far different from the
one we arc considering.
Mr. Wrisl-To prevent disreputable or ire
sponsible persons from doing that you would
require License.
Mr- Culyer--Ihat is it.
A1r. N7ight-That no person should be allowed
to do that except such aa the Judges Of the Su-
preme Court might approve of>
BETTER GUARANTEES.
Heporter-0ur position was simply that that
WAS side lssuo !: that more material guaran-
tees than license could be furnished and ought
to bs furnished.
alr Cul7er-What are they?
Roporter-1 would rather you would argue
that.
: Mr. Culyer-Ary opinion is that it is not safe
or desirable to depend solely upon bonds to Sc
cure holders Of warehouse receipts. It is pretty
difficult matter to make bond that will really
afford protection when tested. Bonds are all
right in theory and when everything is 1ovcly,-
but in time OF trial sonehow or other they don't
bind.
whst would be the best fortn Of eecuri.y7
Mr. Wright. must Say tlat the present law
requiring tho warehouses to procure o license is
the best.
FLYING RATES BIZ LAW.
Reporter-Have not the warehousemen gener-
ally eigniGed their Willingness to take out q L.
cenee it the clause OF tho law fixing their rates
Of ntorage were repealed?
Nlr. Culrer-I have been repeatedly told SO.
Reporter-What do you think OF the adyls-
ability OF repeating that section2
Mr. Culyer-There are two sides to that ques-
tion.
Mr. Wright-This seems to be kind Of gen.
eral conversation.
Eeporter-That is what intended it to be.
A{r. Wright-State the question again.
Reporter-yYhat do you think of the advisable
ity of nrging repeal Of the section 20 as to re-
movo the objection which the warehouse men
1og have to taking out . license?
31r. Wright-Do you mean simply for the pur-
pose Of removing that objection, or as question
of general policy?
Rerorter-As question Of general policy.
Mr.. Wrght-Well go long rs tho warehouse !
em Of force lit ynu may call it SOY, the receivers
md owners Of grain having no election where !!
heir grain shnll Eo-lasing no control orer it |
cannot see that the elevator men have any !
light to complain if they are required to take |
out license nndor the provisions Of the act.
neporter-And to comply with the rates
ME, Wright--And to accept the compensation |
allowed. So far as fixing the compensation is
believe that this is ONO Of those !
;ases where the Legislature has clearly.tho right
Dad is D tollgate, and the proprietoro require d
oil on evory bushel Of grain that goes into
tore. And, Us we have no choice about it. it
ce1ns to me it is one of the i'm
,ezat1ye duties OF our Legislature to zee |
hat We are not Obliged pay e5orbisant
,eople who take grist to the mill. In that case
hoy have the election Of going to one mill or
mother. And as Judge Breezo states IN bis de-
ision. that the right to regulate the weight aud
rice Of loaf Of bread is granted to Legislatures
lnder the Englieh common 1nw we have as
1lmed the right in all Of our constitutions.
Certainly, if we hnve the right to regulate the
7eight Of D loaf Of bread and the price
t which it shall be sold, it is no stretch Of au-
hority to assume that VIC have the right to reg
I
ay ut the elevator for tho reception Of our
rain.
NO COMPETITION.
Reporter-If the monopoly were removed, |
hat wonld you say as to the adviaability Of
milling the rates OF storago-that is, il tho rail-
oad companies were obliged to. allow aug house
. take the grain?
lIr. Wright-1f the railroad companies would
/ good faith allow competition on their lines,
eliero it would be inexpedient to establish any
tlcl rates. because believe that all legislation
the Lind il iuexpodient wheneTer any of those |
uest,ons can be decided br any other method
Y the laws of competition, By the laws OF trade.
int in this case they do not have any
hance at all There is no competition, and
be laws Of trade hare no effect, and will not
overn, and. consequently, the Legislature must |
tep in and do the governing. It would not to
II mind, be an unconstitutional act for them to
0 it. When it comes down to tho point OF having !
ompetition in good faish, it will bo time to talk
bout tho expediency of abolishing that COM
ensation clause. But Wo have not reached
,Gt. The Legislature has been trying to
Zach it, but the Supreme Court step- in, and, in
10 case OF Hampstead. says that railroad COM |
anies shall not be compelled to deliver grain to
arehouses which are remote from their tracks,
ut to those only which are directly On their
acks, while the railroad companies can |
oliver all kinds Of parcel freight and through
.ai9ht~-bulk graln-to any road in the |
", and slow their cars to leave |
,eir tracks: they cannot allow their cars