The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-05-17
SENATE FILE 81.
Is the Bill Against the Interests of
the Farmers.
REPLY TO r. J. HALL.
BY HON. JOHN ZELCH

REPLY TO r. J. HALL.
BY HON. JOHN zELCH.
r. j. Hall, ex-president of the
farmers alliance of this state, has
published circular headed "a Pro-
test Againt the Passage of Senate
File No. 371." 1t was laid upon the
desks of the members of both houses
of the legislature on Monday after
noon. 1t was evidently the inten-
tion of it's author to issue and distri-
butte the circulars prior to the pas
sage of the bill, but this was not &C
complished, as the bill became law
by virtue of the governors signature
on Saturday.
The circular enters into an elabor-
ate discussion of the alleged dement's
of the bill by series of arguments
termed ''Reason Why 1t Should Not
Pass" then follow extracts from the
bill, in which it is attempted to show
numerous discrepancies and errors,
sufficient in the mind of the writer
to render the measure abOrtive and
impracticable.
After making an apology by sta ting
that the consideration which he has
given the bill has been somewhat
casual, the circular closes with a pro-
test in the name of the farmers of
the state, whom Mr. Hall assumes to
represent and whose sentiments he
assumes to express against the pas
sage of the bill.
My object in taking up the matter
is to correct, as far as possible, the eff
feet that his fallacious arguments
and misconceptions may have upon
the minds of those who read them
without having the means at hand,
or sufficient knowledge of the sub
ject, to either verify or disprove
their correctness. Sound lawyers
who have examined the measure pro-
nounce it fully operative and practic-
able. Perhaps the author of the cir
cular is endowed with more pro-
found legal knowledge than those
who have made an exhaustive exam
inatiOn into the merits of the meas
ure. Mr.. Halls apology that his con-
sideration of the bill had been some
what casual seems to be fully borne
out after careful reading of his pa
per.
Take up the circular in detail, the
author asserts that "a distinction is
made between elevators on the right
of way and elevators on private
lands" This is true; elevators on the
railroad right of way are declared
public elevators under the law in
cOntradistinction to the other class,
because they are upon land which has
been condemned for public purposes;
therefore they are, or should be, de-
voted to public interests and consti-
tute the medium through which an
important part of the process of
transportation is carried on.
They are to all intents and pur-
poses, and as far as the interests of
the public are involved, the depu-
tized agents through which the rail-
road companies are enabled to dis
charge a portion of their lawful
duty, to-wit: the receiving, caring
for, loading and transporting grain,
and therefore they should be, as such
agents, subject to control and regula-
tion by law, equally with the rail
road companies. This could hardly
be construed as true in the case of
warehouses erected upon property
leased or bought and owned by it's
occupant, and which had not been
condemned for public use. The JUS
tice and the propriety of such a dis
tinction is not only apparent when
one considers the conditions sur
rounding the two classes of ware
houses mentioned, but it also EN-
bodies the views of intelligent and
representative farmers in all sections
OF the state, as advocated by them
for number of years. The circular
asks the question: eff it is a privi-
lege to operate public elevator, I'M
der supervisors of the railroad and
warehouse commission, why should it
be given to one and denied to the
other?" To this would reply that
it is in no sense to be construed as
privilege, but is made compulsory
duty upon the warehousemen located
on the right of way to operate as
public warehousemen and subjects