St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-06-04

He had all sorts of paraphernali a with
him toillustraUe the manner of probing
cars, and cleaning and weighing wheat,
which he did very satisfactorily.
IL. E. Marvin, assistant superintend-
ent of the Lake Superior company's ell
evators, testified that the sale of screen
ingS was under the charge of the super
intendent. He was away from the ele-
vator between December. 1888, and
May, 1889, and knew nothing of any
cars being shipped out at night during
January, 1889. During the ten years he
had been employed at the elevator
be knew Of no inventory being
taken TO ascertain the amount of
wheat on hand. He knew of some wheat
that had been received before state in
spectiOn begun being shipped out after
ward, but he thought it was all in
spected out.
Charles Dahl, foreman for the Union
Elevator company, was called and taken
through the same course of questioning.
He had been
Instructed to Bring
with him all the books in his charge
when he appeared before the house COM
mittee. but stated when called that he
kept no books. They were kept by the
boOkkeeper. The witness was cross
examined by Mr.. Childs. He explained
that when vessel took out more wheat
than it could carry, the surplus was
transferred back te the pocket bin,
where it was weighed and credited to
the boat. From the pocket bins it was
taken up into the elevator. Many cars
came into the elevator leaking. Very
often the end or side door would be
open.
J. A. Sibbold, weigher at elevator E.
testified that he kept a receiving book
only. He knew of no cars or vessels
being loaded at night.
YardmaSter E. Z. Richards, of the
Northern Pacific railway, was again
placed on the stand in the afternoon.
He said it was nothing unusual for
grain to be
Shipped Out at Night,
but he never heard of grain being
shipped without inspection, nor did he
know of any South Shore cars being
supplied the elevator for that purpose
He had nothing to do with inspection.
He received orders regulating the dis
poSal of cars from the agent. and did
not know for whom they were intended.
Inspector Clausen was recalled and
crosS-questioned by Mr.. Erwin. II at
tempted to prove that if the law had
been enforced to the letter it would
have been possible to tell by examina-
ton what quantity of grain was in the
elevator at any time.
Mr.. Clausen, recalled, said the ware
houSemen issued the receipts, and they
were sworn to. They were supposed to
be correct, because sworn to, and that
was the only safeguard as to the guam
tity of wheat in the elevators.
WHY hasn't the department some regula-
ton for knowing the amount of wheat in any
elevator?' asked Mr.. Erwin.
Because" was the reply, 'we should have
to take entire charge of the warehouses;
wasn't it according to law that everything
should be accounted for by warehouse re-
ceiptsy"
Il don't know what the theory of the law
LAS a matter of fact, the registers Office
has never reflected the value of the grain in
the elevatorS?'
1T shows the amount on hand as per
sworn statement of warehouse men"
A Defective Law.
The examination then reverted to
shipments and receipts, and continued
on this line for some time.
You, Them said Mr.. Erwin, 'are enforc-
ing a defective law"
I'VE have tried to get amendments, but
have failed so far"
What percentage of the elevators are
owned by farmers?'
About per cent
''Then SO percent of the legislation on these
matters is for the middlemenT'
"A large percentage u.s..
''Then does not the farmers protection de
mand thorough enforcement of laW?',
81 think not for there ore olauSeS in If hat
ter not enforced"
Mr.. Erwin's attempt to show that the
railway and warehouse commission had
been derelict in their handling of the
grain business aroused Chief Inspector
ClauSen, who called attention to the
fact that the present grain law was de.
fective in many respects; that no one
realized it more than the railway and
warehouse commission, who had at
tempted at the last three sessions of the
legislature to secure amendatory legis-
lation. but had failed. He also showed
that the rules and regulations estab
liShed by the commission were based
upon the provisions of the grain law
and that the methods of the business te
which Mr.. Erwin objected were really
| specific provisions of the law, and could
neither be ignored nor altered except
by the legislation proposed by the com
mission. Mr.. Clausen in his testimony
also stated that in no other market in
| this country did the system of forward
| ing grain in the dirt obtain, upon which
Mr.. Erwin asked his opinion as
to the merits of the system, to which he
replied that he thought that all grain
| should be sent forward to terminal mar
kets in clean condition and under the
very best conditions possible. That when
the grain inspection department TOOK
charge, five or six years ago, about one.
third of it was received in the dirt, two
| thirds of the receipts being clean. To
day it is very rare sight to see q
cleaned car of grain. He ascribed the
| change to the fact that farmers and
shippers in the country could not clear
the grain profitably as against the light
dockage placed upon it by the inspect
ors. This was owing to the superior
and finely adjusted machinery in the
terminal elevators. as against the prim.
tive tanning mill of the farmer.
The committee adjourned to meet this