, 1875-07-31
THE State INSPECTION OF GRAIN.

a striking case illustrating the lnl1ulty OF
the state System Of grain-inspection now In
forco in Illinois WIS brought to light yester-
day. A merchant in Kansaa mado shipment
Of wheat to Chicago, amounting to eighteen
carloads Ten Of these ours be shipped by
the Chicago, Burlington i Quincy Railroad
and the other eight by another route, All
tho cars roached Chicago and wero inspected
the same day, Tho ten cars brought hero
ovor the c., D. l. Q. Rond were inspected by
one subordinate Of the State inspectors
ot1lco into warehouse as No. wheat. OF the
other carloads, inspected by another subor.
dinato, five were inspected as Projected" md
three loAds wors doolared understandable"
Both rejected and unmorchantable are below
the grade Of No. 3. Here, then, were no
less than eight carloads Of wheAt tumblad
into elevators rs unstable stuff. Now comes
tie sequel. Tho owner Of this GRIM, upon
being informed of what the State Inspectors
Ind done with Lis property, fortified
himself with all the requisite proofs, and
yestorday exhibited thcm on Change.
llo showed TINT the eighteen cars wore
loaded on ths Game day at the Ha1ne
tino with wheat taken from the came bin in
the same warehouse. It WIGS all Of the same
quality and gcnoral charactor. The differ
enco in tho inspection was no ordinary one,
Those car~loaels which camo by one route,
and therefore passed under tho eye OF one
Inspector, was readily passed into warehouse
al standard No. Q. The other eight ca1-londs
of tie sa1ne wheat fell into the handa Of
another Inspector, who declared It all as below
No. 8, and classed it as rejected and unmer-
chantable. This mans proof Of the identity
of all the wheat as Of ono kind taken at the
same time from the same bin Is consid-
orsd conclusive. It follows that the In
spoction was mere matter of chance. Had
1t all been brought by tho Chicago, Durling-
ton l. Quincy Road it would have all passed
as No. 2; had it all been brought by tho
othor route it would have been emptiod into
warehouse as rejectod OF unmorchantable.
1s not this sufficient comment upon max
ing the inspection Of grain q part OF tho
politics Of tho 6tate7
Where u the redroas OF this merchant :
What ro.nedy has ho against this kind Of in
spection, Which has destroyed over 81, 900
worth Of his property? Multiply this casa
by the hundreds which aro occurring or IRE
likoly to occur ovezy day, aud some Idea may
be gathered Of the robbery and plumber to
which persons alipping grain to thus point
are subjected by tho Illinois btato inspection.
For long timo persons sought to protect
themselves by employing experts to watch
their grain, md to actually inspect It after
the State inspection, In order that the owners
property might be protected against the In.
competency Of the Inspectors or the injus-
tica OF the ine1osnbla rules established by the
State Board. hut the State inspection would
tolerate nothing Of this kind, and every man
who attempted to examine tue grain and in.
epect 1t for the information Of tho ownes
was prosecuted by the Chief State Inspector,
and tried before the courts for assuming Ia
inspect grain In Illinois without the au.hori,
ty Of the State Bnard
We again suggest that there can hardly b
any constitutional authority for such an in.
reference by the State Of Illinois with the
property Of persons OF other States sent here
to ba forwarded to other points and the in
jury ia so great to individuals, and the de-
struction OF the tsads Of our city 50 immi
nent, that 1t is worth the expense and th
trouble Of hayiag the question judicial,
tested in tie United States Courts. AZ II il
the State of Illinois sysumes the authority o
seizins every bushoi Of grain shipped Int.
this btAts from othas States, and Azbitsasil,
to plaos taius thereon. ADD 10 dAalArs b