The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-11-03
THE GRADING Of WHEAT.
Eastern Washington Farmers
Condemn the Commission.
FOR RAISING THE STANDARD.
II Is Claimed That the Test Weight
of 80 Pounds for No. ] IL Directly
kn the Interest of the Big Export
ers and Against the small Grow
ers-So, wheat Here Would
Go as No. 4 i'm Other States.

Ever since the state grain commission
established a test weight Of fifty-nine
pounds for No. grade wheat. there has
been almost endless argument in this
state as TO whether IL was right or wrong.
whether the state would lose or win by
the action of the commission. and Ia the
minds OF many the matter today remains
unsettled Men who claim 70 know what
they are talking about have said that the
commission was wise in raising the stand
ard from fifty-eight TO fifty-nine pounds;
others have insisted that the work of the
commission was one of the most outrag
eous things ever perpetrated in the state.
and have repeatedly said 1t would mean
the loss of thousands of dollars TO the
farmers of Washington.
Conservative men who have weighed the
matter now unite in saying that the COM
mission made great error In raising the
standard. and that as has been argued,
the state viii be a great financial loser.
Yesterday the Post-IntelIigeneer secured
an interview with a Seattle man who has
just returned from Eastern Washington.
where he has been for a month looking
after extensive wheat interests. He says
there Is no doubt that the commission
made a blunder Of the worst kind.
II know" he said. that the farmers
of Eastern Washington generally con-
denim the action of the commission be-
cause they realize that they will suffer a
severe loss.
There are a few facts In connection
with the wheat crop in this state which
have not been published. The truth Is
that the crops OF Eastern Washington
suffered serious damage by the rains which
came Just before harvest time | know
that because I know the condition of my
own crops and the crops Of others. OF
course the early wheat did not suffer, but
that which we have Just harvested was
injured at least 5 per cent. ! say II. and
say ii because / believe 1t. that 65 per
cent OF the wheat just harvested will he
No. under the existing test weight.
whereas 1t would have been No. l under
the old weight Think of the loss that
the people of this state VIII suffer. There
is a difference Of about 3 cents in the
value of the two grades. The big export
ers who beyond any doubt are responsible
for the increase In the standard weight.
will reap all the profit. They buy the
wheat from the farmer of this state as
No. . and they sell II. as they have
perfect right TO do. for No l. Why should
they not sell il for No. II Ii is so regard
ed in the great majority of the other
stateS-in fact, in every state where they
have a good-sized wheat crop.
The state grain commission has been
defending its work by saying that the
wheat crop of the state this year IS such
a fine one that most of II will go over the
present standard. As I have just told you,
that is erroneous. l noticed the other day
a statement from grain inspector that
he tested an enormous amount OF wheat
that arrived In one Of our cities and that
with the exception of a few car loads all
was No. l. He mentioned that fact, as he
said to show what fine wheat this state
has produced What does he prove by the
statement? Nothing absolutely nothing.
X just CHANGED that some one bought
quantity of No. wheat and shipped IL 10
the city The inspector examined it and
found that a few car loads. according 10
his outrageous figures, were No. ? As
matter OF fact. it Is proba Bile that the ex-
porter who bought II took IL all as No.
and was glad 10 get II.
eff YOU go over in Eastern Washington
and spend some time among the farmers
YOU will find that they are unanimous in
condemning the action Of the commission.
OF course you will here and there, find
a farmer whose wheat went forty bushels
10 the acre and weighs over sixty pounds.
He is happy and viii tell you, as he walks
along with his head high in the air that
he thinks the commission was wise tn rails
ing the standard. But every time you find
one farmer OF that kind you will find a
dozen who were not so fortunate and who
will condemn IN the bitterest language the
''I.et me tell YOU something about my own
land On a half section I raised 1000 BUSH
els Of wheat that weighed at least 5SA
pounds. Last year II would have gone for
No. wheat. This year II I were to fol-
low the action Of the commission. I would
sell X for No. 2 ! know OF a case where
a farmer in Eastern Washington had
contract with a big export house to fur
nlsh them with an enormous amount %
wheat The contract price was about 5
cents higher than the present market price.
When the wheat was ready % be turned
over 10 the exporters they did not want Il.
They knew they were bound by contract.
but fortunately for them, their contract
called for No. ] wheat. The farmers
wheat was tested II was fne wheat and
last year would have sold for No l. But
It fell a little short OF No. J under the ex-
listing standard and tho export house. told
him that he could keep j. That Is Just
one ot a number OF instances. When the
commission says that the great bulk Of the
wheat OF this state Is No. ! IL makes a
serious mistake. and one that cannot be
explained away II tell YOU that the rains
turned the bulk Of what would have been
No. wheat Into No. 2 II the old stand
ard had been allowed 70 remain. as II
should have been. the wheat would have
gone FOR No. l. even with the injury which
the rain did it. and thu state would have
been the winner
As a matter of fact. The little farmer
that s. the farmer VINO did nor have n
enormous crops the one who is going