The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-05-17
le alleges, they have been in the

A great deal of space is consumed
by the writer in discussing that por-
tion OF section 4 which provides that
the elevator companies may, at their
option, issue an order upon a termin-
al elevator point, which the owner of
the grain may designate, subject to
such lawful charges as may have &C
crued upon such grain from the date
OF the issuance of the order until the
grain is received from the terminal
warehouse. 1t is evident that the
writer worked himself up to an I'M
due condition of excitement over the
possibility that the elevator COM
panies would establish this method
of delivery exclusively, and thus the
farmer would suffer the loss of he
per bushel on every bushel of wheat
disposed of by him. To quote the
author Of the circular exactly:
wheat in a terminal elevator is sub
ject to terminal charge, which
charge the farmer has to pay"
Now, there is nothing in the pro-
visions of the law that warrants such
bold assumption, and it is clearly
evident that the writer in his ex-
cited state of mind has simply jump
ed at the conclusions. The language
of the law provides that such written
order shall be subject to all freight
or transportation or other lawful
charges which may have accrued up
on said grain from the date of the is
suance of said order to the date
when the grain is demanded for de-
livery at the terminal warehouse. 1t.
therefore, is very clear that, as the
grain will have been deposited in the
terminal warehouse by the elevator
company or country warehouses,
prior to the issuance by them of the
order for such grain on such termin-
al warehouse it is held in such ware
house subject to the demand of such
elevator company, or country ware
housemen, until the order for it's de-
livery is issued; consequently, while
the charge of tic per bushel might be
held to be lawful charge in the lit
eral meaning of the term, upon the
part of the terminal warehouse, GER
tainly it would not. nor could it be
construed to be a lawful charge as
against the holder of the orders with
in the meaning of this act.
The law unquestionably contem-
plates the delivery of grain in cars
outside of the terminal warehouse
upon presentation of the order, and
not in store within such warehouse,
unless the holder of the order so de-
sires it, in which case he would pro-
coed in accordance with section to
exchange his order for a warehouse
or storage receipt. The restrictions
in the language and conditions of the
order in the matter of delivery seem
to be very plainly prescribed in lines
20 to 35 inclusive of section 4, and
admits, in my opinion, of no other
possible construction than that here
in advanced. By no reasonable con-
struction could charges lawfully &C
crue against the holder of the order
except such storage charges as were
caused by delay in presentation of the
order. If, in consequence of any neg
lect on the part of the party issuing
such order in discharging his obliga-
tiOns, the terminal warehouse men
should refuse to deliver the grain
called for by such order, the holder
thereof has ample means of redress
under the provisions embraced in
lines II to 81 inclusive, of section 7.
The only advantage gained by the
warehOusemen under section is the
privilege at any time, when deemed
necessary by them, to relieve their
country warehouses of their crowded
capacity, and for this purpose makes
it optional with such country ware
house men to discharge their local OBJ
legations by the issuance of an order
for the delivery of the grain out of a
terminal warehouse, or by delivery
from the local warehouse as he NAV
desire. If the writer is borrowing any
trouble over the possibility of such an
unfortunate result from the opera
tiOn of the law, as is so direfully pre-
dicted in his circular, he may dispel
the gloom from his mind.
AS to the possibility that the ele-
VdCOI COul pdulcS, Ill UIlolF u0S1ro TO
make the farmers perspire under the
law, will deliver the grain from some
remote terminal elevator, and thus
pile up several switching charges for
the farmers to pay, which possibility
seems to worry the writer considera-
bly,, it is only necessary to state that
under the grain and warehouse law
of 1885, as we'll as the law under con-
sideration, the commission have the
power to investigate all complaints
of fraud and oppression in the grain
trade and correct the same, so that
any attempt of such a nature would
inevitably prove disastrous failure,
should any warehouseman or eleva-
tor company essay to make it, which
is hardly likely from the standpoint of
of common sense.
Attention is called by the circular
to what it is pleased to term an alb
surd and ridiculous provision lin sec
ton 4, which he alleges will prevent
an elevator from issuing more than
one receipt day. The language re-
referred to is as follows: mo two
receipts or orders bearing the same
date shall be issued during the same
year from the same warehouse"
If, upon SO slight morsel as this,
the enemies of the measure expect to
defeat ifs ono ra tiOn thew arc doomed