The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-06-27

sion OF the grain SITUATION am quite
sure l could make good use of such
figures" ANs.-The figures are con-
tanned in the annual reports of the
State Railroad and Warehouse Com
mission. They are as follows, omit
ting cents:
1855 a mos)...... s27,0s2 1s9t....... S109.65
1857 ................ a,45a 1893 1as,ll4
1888 ................ 9O,731
ioS9 ....sr..s&'' ny.oo! IOtal.... SS49,9S9
This is up to the year ending August
b., lS93 To get at the real cost it
would be proper to add interest of at
least per cent from the time reports
were made down to the present, which
will swell the amount to about 81 ,0O0,-
900. This sum has all been expended
in conducting the department, except
s15, ,277 for the purchase of site for
the state elevator in Duluth-bought
before the law authorizing it was de-
clared unconstitutional $43,-
754.21 on hand Aug. 81, 1898, against
eS4, 753.05 on hand one year before.
The excess of the disbursements over
receipts was due in part to reduction
of inspection charges from 20 to Is
cents car, and the purchase Of the
elevator site.-Farm, Stock & Home.
AS we said recently this whole sys-
tenn Of inspection and weighing is
principally for the benefit of the
wheat buyers. When the farmer
comes to the elevator, near his home,
to sell his wheat, there is no officer of
the state to inspect it, grade it or
weigh it. He can be cheated out of
one-fourth of his load and be utterly
without defence. But after the local
dealer has bought his wheat, and
shipped it to Minneapolis, St. Paul or
Duluth, then to defend himself
against bigger thief, who might
cheat him out of all he took from the
farmers, the state kindly steps in and
taxes the farmers, over one million
dollars in nine years, to protect the To-
cal buyers; or to protect the terminal
wolves from each other. We should
advocate the abolition of the whole
system but for the fact that in that
case the local dealers, having no pro-
lection from their big bellied-breth-
ern, of the terminal points, would
stick it to the farmers still more un-
mercifully to protect themselves.
But while the buyers tax the farm
ers to protect themselves from each
other, is there no way for the farmers
to protect themselves from the
buyers?
Ten years ago-yes, fifteen years
ago,-we proposed in the Legislature
system of local inspection of wheat.
Our plan was something like this:
Let the State Board of Railroads and
Warehouses, which already exists, es-
tablish the grades, as they do now.
Then let the people of each county
elect grain inspector. He will re-
ceive his instructions from the State
Board, with samples of grain. The
County Inspector shall be paid a
moderate salary, say $500 or $1,000
year, out of the county funds. He ap-
points at each town, where wheat is
bought, deputy inspector. Let him
be some man, probably merchant,
familiar with wheat. and in whom the
people have confidence. If A. B.,
farmer, brings in a wagon-load of
wheat, and has dispute with c.. D.,
the buyer. as to whether it is No. l, or
No. 2, or No. 3, the farmer appeals to
E. F. the local inspector. He decides
between the conflicting interests, and
is paid, say 10 cents, or 25 cents, for
each wagon load so inspected. If
either party is dissatisfied he appeals
to the county inspector; or to the
state inspector; package of the
wheat is sealed up and sent to the
county inspector or to st. Paul. the
load or loads are taken temporarily at
the inspectors estimate, and the mat
ter is finally adjusted by the decision
of the state inspector, with right to
a still farther appeal, if necessary, to
the State Board. The same local in
spector should be weigh master and
should be paid liberal sum for any
case of false-Scales which he NAV de-
tect.
1t was urged that the local inspec-
tor might make mistakes. True; but
the buyers, as it is now, may purposely
make worse ones; and his mistakes are
always in favor of himself. In the
conflict Of personal interests the pre-
sumption would be that the local in
spection would be impartial. If he
joined in to rob the farmers the coun-
ty inspector could remove him and ap-
point another.
But the chief objection was the ex-
pense. I Ireplied that the only addi-
tional outlay chargeable to the tax
payers would be the salaries of the
county agents. Say that fifty counties
availed themselves of the law and
paid 81 900 each to county inspector;
that would be $4,000 a year, divided
among 100000 people, or about the
third part of a tenth of a cent for
each person. And even this need not
come out of the taxpayers; it could be
taken from the present inspection
fund, of Is cents on a car of 1000
bushels. But the State Board and
the Chief Grain Inspector, we already
have; they would cost nothing addi-
tional; and the local inspectors would
be paid by the parties disputing as to
the grade of the wheat, the one that
was wrong in his contention paying it
all. And what farmer would not
willingly pay 10 or 25 cents, rather
than 60 home convinced that he had
been robbed of two or three dollars?
But observe, that when anybody, but
the farmers, wants anything, the