Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1879-05-03
LEsUEUR'S GRAIN BILL.

L, MAY ., 1919
LEsUEUR's GRAIN BILL.
Last week we expressed the opinion
that the general assembly would certain
ly pass the Lesueur grain bill il they had
proper regard for the interests OF the ag-
riculturai classes OF Missouri. We wish
now TO say that the farming people of
the state will watch, with vlgilant eyes,
the vote of every one OF their represent
tatives as they put themselves upon the
record on this subject. E'ee a..I
Ever since the introduction of this bill
Jefferson City has been overrun with q
wea thy, influential and industrious lob
by of prominent citizens interested in
the grain elevators OF St. Louis, who
have been making strenuous efforts to
secure pledges OF members to vote
against the bill They have paid mark
ed attentions and made themselves ex-
tremelv agreeable to the farmers in the |
legislature. and have evidently striven
hard to create an opposition to the meas |
ure. While we recognize the right OF
these gentlemen, and OF every lobby, to |
be heard in behalf OF their private Inter-
ests, we cannot forbear reminding the
members who represent agricultural dis |
tricts of the state that the great body OF
the people cannot be expected to cope
with a lobby in the use OF social bland
lshments and seductive opportunities.
Yet the people have the right to demand
that the men whom they have honored
with their choice as representatives.
shall protect the material interests OF
their constituents, regardless OF the in
huence and efforts OF any interested
lobby.
we believe that no measure has been
proposed to this general assembly OF
more Importance to the farmers OF Mis-
souri,, or respecting VIII ch members will
be called to a stricter account by their
constituents than this grain or warehouse
bill 1t Is a measure to protect the in
terests of the producer against ''possi-
BILE fraud IN the handling of grain" as
expressed in its title. 1t is measure
of Illinois in 1871, by an uprising OF the
entire farming population OF the state
against the frauds to which they had
been subjected. and which are possible
under any similar system OF handling
grain. 1t has been the law in Indiana.
another great grain state, since 1873.
Minnesota, Kansas and Massachusetts al
so have statutes containing similar prcvl-
sions for the protection of grain produc-
ers. who, by the laws of commercial me-
cesslty, are obliged to send their pro-
ducts through the elevators on the way
to market.
Want of space forbids review OF all
the minute and careful details OF the pro-
posed bill. We will, however, mention
a few of the salient features OF it.and say
of the remainder that it is simply de-
signed to give effect to the principles
mentioned:
The bill is drawn to secure fair and
equitable regulation of the handling OF
grain; to prevent the fraudulent mixing
Of gram (whlle in storey with other
grain of an inferior grade without the
owners consent; to prevent the over.
issue or reissue of warehouse receipts
10 prevent the issue OF any receipt where
there is no property to represent ii
(Which, if allowed, would enable eleva
tors to control the market for specnla
tive purposes; to prevent the insertion
IN receipts OF arbitrary conditions limit
ing liability (such as those. for instance
often seen in express, telegraph and sim
liar receipts) /; to prevent any tamperinE
with grain in store to secure profit fol
any person other than its owner; to pre-
vent elevators from making any combi
nation with railroads for the purpose o
!, obtaining grain contrary to the orders
|, its owner; to prevent short weights b.
subjecting elevator scales to prevent ex
y tortion in storage charges by establish
y ing maximum rate therefor; and to sc
= cure the observance of the law by re
. quiring a bond for q faithful complianc
y Herewith.
. These provisions are so obviously jus
- as scarcely to require argument to sus
- :, tain them. The section fixing max
q mum rate OF storage has. perhaps, mos
y need of comment, in view of the attack
:, upon 1t as being can unreasonable intel
= ference with private business" Th
. rate established by the proposed law
>, not lower than the average charge made
but the reason tor prohibiting by law a
!" increase OF such charge, exists In th
- important fact that the entire elevate
u interests OF St. Louis have recently bee
;. consolidated into one great monopol.
=. controlling all the elevators in the cit,
70 This combination destroys competition
!, and places the grain and its producer
=, at the mercy Of the united elevators.
respect to storage charges, unless til
A. =, law shall prevent it by reasonable rel
- ulatiUn.
- - The highest court In the United Stat,
: has declared In the case of MuRn vs..
~ ~ linois a Otto's reports. p. 1l3)that sue
II regulation was not only constitutions
~ but wise and just. In view of the poss
:. billty OF the formation OF a monopoly
:. the elevators. In St. Louis this possib
- - ity has become reality. demanding in
: mediate attention of the legislature
,; proposed in the pending bill, which Il
- - united elevator interests have been
- active in opposing.
We cannot see on what ground al
friend of the producing classes in MI
n souri, can oppose this measure. and '
IL shall hence note with great care, Il
C, final record vote on the subject.
lc IHenry Countv Demncrnt