The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-12-05
IS THE LAW VALID?
SEEMING INCONSISTENCY IN THE
WORDING OF THE UNCLAIMED
FREIGHT ACT.
is EACH ROAD HELD LIABLE
FOR THE VALUE OF FREIGHT ATT
ERNARD ENTRUSTED TO THE
WAREHOUSEETEN.
Is EACH ROAD HELD LIABLE
POOLING BILL is NOW ABANDONED
Roads Centering at Chicago VIII
Make No Effort to Pass One
This Session.

Arguments in the cases of five of the
railroads indicted by the recent grand
jury on the charge of violating the law
oc 1895 relating to the disposition of un-
claimed freight We're made before Judge
Brill yesterday on demurrers to the in
dictments entered individually by the
roads. The railroads taking such ac-
ton were the $780," Chicago, Milwau-
kee & st. Paul, Great Northern and
Great Western, being respectively rep
resented by NJ. D. Mum, w H Norris,
Cyrus Wellington, D. w. LAWYER and
F. B. Kellogg.
The law of 1895, upon which the com
plaint, sworn to in each instance by
James A Lewis, is based, provides for
the licensing Of public warehouses. and
states that no person shall engage in
the warehouse and storage business
unless duly licensed Provision is
made that transportation companies
receiving property shall notify con-
Signees within forty-eight hours, and
that if such consignee fails to call for
the property within twenty days the
railroad company shall deliver the
same to a licensed warehouse. The
wareb ouseman shall pay the charges of
the transportation company, and shall
have lien on the property for charges
advanced, for it's own charges and for
any insurance which it might effect
A violation Of the law is declared to be
a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine
OF not more than 81, 900.
The law was passed April 20, 1895, but
contained a provision that it should
not go into effect until July Of the same
which regarded
of an inconsistency in that it is further
provided that licenses under 1t must
be taken out within thirty days after
its passage. Thus it operated before
1t went into effect.
The demurrerS Of the railroads were
based upon the ground that the indict-
ments did not charge a public offense.
In their arguments the different attor-
neys claimed that the indictments did
not allege that the railroads were not
licensed warehouses, that they might
not be such, and that the law was IN
constitutional in that it was not &
valid exercise of the police power of
the state, The claim was also made
that the law was passed in the inter
ests of private parties, and that it Gre
ated monopoly, because no one could
transact the business Of public ware
hOuSeman unless a license had been
taken out within thirty days after the
passage of the act. This in reality shut
out every one who was not actually in
the warehouse business at that time
Furthermore, it was alleged that the
law interfered with the liberty of a cit
izen to contract with regard to his
property, 1t being a provision Of the
law that transportation CON panies
should turn over to the WarehoUSemen
all goods within twenty days without
the consent of the consignees notwith-
standing that there might be an agree
ment between consignee and transpor-
tation company to hold the property
for a longer time. The argument vas
also made that turning over property
to Warehousemen under the law Of 1895
gave them the right to take property
without due process of law and the
consent Of the owner, thus permitting
the imposition of charges which were
declared to be lien upon the goods.
The law was also attacked on the
ground that it interfered with the III
terstate commerce law, as it applied to
property transported from without the
state as well as from within.
Attorney Countryman, on behalf Of
the state, and acting in the capacity Of
attorney for the Warehousemen, argued
that the railroad companies could not
become licensed warehousemen under
the law, which was simply a reasonah
regulation in the interest of public
business and of warehousemen. Mr..
Countryman claimed that the law
WOQlu I1Ot Apply W cases where an
agreement had entered into for goods
to remain in the possession Of the rail-
roads for longer than the specified
twenty days, and that where parties
failed to call for property within
twenty days it might be presumed that
they had abandoned it to be turned
over to the Waresousemen. 1t was as
serted that the owner was not deprived
of his property nor interfered with in
its disposition, but simply provided a
method Of charge for it's storage and
required only a reasonable charge Ar
guing against the interference of the
law with the interstate commerce law,
MI. Countryman claimed that there
was no conflict nor attempt at inter
ference with the disposition of the
goods by their owner after having
reached their destination. The purpose
Of the law, he declared, was simply to
provide for unclaimed property, and
was not to aid the interests Of any ia
vored class.
At the conclusion Of the argument Of
counsel lengthy briefs were filed with
the court by whom the matter was
taken under amusement