The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-05-17

they are, by Vlrture OF their location
upon land condemded for public pur-
poses and engaged in business of
public nature, in the true sense pub
lie warehousemen. At the same
time there is nothing in the provis-
ions of the law which would debar
warehouseman, on private ground,
from conducting his business in the
nature of public business if he so
desires, nor is there anything to COM
pei him to do SO if he does not so de-
sire.
Again the writer calls attention to
the language in the first line of sec
tion l, providing that warehouses in
which grain is stored and handled
are declared to be public warehouses.
He then argues that if an elevator
located on the right of way does not
store grain, it is excepted from the
law, and then deduces from this that
if an association of farmers desire to
store and handle their own grain,
they are prohibited from doing so I'M
less they become public elevators,
whether they desire to be or not.
The whole argument on this point is
based upon lamentable misconcep-
tion on the part of the writer as to
the meaning, and intent of the law,
and emphasizes the already conspicu-
Gus truth of his admission that his
consideration of the bill has been
somewhat casual. If he had read
section l carefully he would find,
commencing in the fifth line of said
section, in substance, the following
language: cit shall be unlawful to
receive store, ship or handle any
grain in any such elevator or ware
house until license fee of 81 has
been procured comforting full author
ity to operate such elevator or ware
house in accordance with laws of this
state, such license being subject to
revocation upon proof of violation of
such laws" Can the writer say how
it could be possible to store grain
without handling it, or how it could
be stored, handled or shipped with
out receiving it? Or, can he intelli-
gently explain how any elevator or
warehouse could be successfully oper-
ated without either receiving, stor-
ing, handling, or shipping grain?
And, if not, can he enlighten his
readers as to how any elevator or
warehouse upon the right of way,
which either receives, stores, handles
or ships grain, can escape the opera
tiOn of the law? 1 think not, and if
not his whole argument fails.
His statements that corporations
can be fined only and farmers both
fined and imprisoned may be regard
ed as only an attempt on his part to
be facetious, as it is common pro-
vision in laws of this and other
states of similar nature, and SIM
ply made to insure the collection of
the fine imposed for violation of the
law.
He takes exceptions in section to
the clause providing that the rules
formulated by the commission to
regulate the management of eleva-
tors and warehouses shall be binding,
and have the force and effect of law.
Perhaps the language is susceptible
to criticism, but only to hypercrit-
ical person, as the evident intent was
to empower the commission to make
rules and regulations in accordance
with the provisions of law. There is
no reason for any but a morbid mind
to apprehend that the commission
would make rules not in accordance
with the law, nor is it likely that the
court in determining a disputed
point in the law, would be governed
by any consideration except it's evil
dent intent.
The argument that section shuts
out the farmers who desire to handle
and ship their own grain is also evil
dence of the writer's blind and I'M
reasonable prejudice against the
measure. If associations of farmers
erect warehouses of limited capacity
on the right of way, as they will be
enabled to do under the provision of
II. F. No. 4O1, which is now a law,
the fact such warehouses will be Of
extremely limited capacity would
make it impossible for them at all
times to receive to any extent, or per-
haps, at all, grain belonging to other
owners, and there is nothing in the
law, or in it's intent, to compel them
to do so. 1t might as we'll be argued
that when an elevator or warehouse
is full and overflowing and incapable
of receiving another bushel, that
still such warehouse would be COM
PEELED to receive grain without dis
elimination from any person tender
ing the same, on the ground that the
act does not provide for such a con-
tingency as full warehouse. The
law does not contemplate impossi-
bilities nor do l apprehend that an