The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-08-21
TO TEST INSPECTION.
GRAIN DEALERS ATTACK THE con-
sTITITIoxALITx OF THE LAW.
At Present Grain of All Kinds Is In
Privilege 10 Granted 10 Farmers
Dealers Insist That Inferior
Grain, Intenaed for Feeding
Stock, Ought Not to BE Inspected

The eoassisutlonallty Of the grain In
spection iaw passed by the legislature
. lss5 has been attacked by the grain
dealers o. this city. and Judge Bsnson.
or the superior court, VIII within q few
days 5e called upon 70 dsEads the 91es-
tion IN a test zs1it brought 6y state Grain
Inspector George z. Wright. OF Tacoma.
against Lily, BoSardus Co.. who DO
large grain business n THIS state, with
headq quarters al Seattle The basis OF
the complaint, which has been served but
not yet fled, Is the alleged refusal Of the
defendants 20 pay the fees for four in
spectt01s made b. q deputy Inspector of
grain Consigned 70 them. amounting In
al 10 but S4-so. The grain dealers are
ng5tlng for a principle. however.
Briefly stated, their complaint against
the law u that Il. as at present construed.
AZ least. requires tho inspection Of all
grain, for whatever purpose intended.
shipped into Seattle Tacoma and Spo-
kane, whether an inspection Is desired ~
the eoas.gnor and the conSEsree or not.
and even when the ccnsiSnor and the
ccnslgEee are the same person. They ad-
Nit thai when there Is disagreement
between the buyer and seller IS 70 the
grade OF grain shipped. II would be proper
20 have II Inspected. but that no insDec-
ton should be made unless requested by
at least one Of the parties; and further.
that even II inspection - the state with
out the request u either party should he
considered necessary. il would BE- prop
erly confined 70 grain Intended for ex-
port or milling. and not extended to IN
ferior grain intended for feed for live
stock. This. they claim. was in fact the
intention OF the legislature as shown by
the clause q the act providing that Sc
attic. Tacoma ard Spokane. and such
other places IN the state where grain IS
received Ia car load lots for milling or ex-
port. may be designated as places for
state inspection" Al present the In
spector inSp~cts everything Ia sight.
The grain dealers also claim that the
act Is unjust IN that II Is now enforced
IN but the three principal cities Of the
state. notwithstanding large Quantities Of
grain are nailled and exported at many
other towns aud cities without inspection
and payment Of fees. II IS IN this respect
that the grain dealers claim the act VIC
lates the constitution OF the United states
and Of the state OF Washington. guaran-
teeing equal rights and privileges and
uniform rates OF taxation The act espe-
ciaily provides that grain hauled into
places Of inspection by farmers in wagons
shall not be inspected. and this. also. the
dealers claim. IS a special privilege, and
say that the farmer who might find II
convenient 20 bring his grain 10 market
by steamboat OF his Own would have TO
submit Il to Inspection
In their answer, which states some OF
these objections 10 the law. Lilly. Bc-
gardus & Co. lay great stress upon the
fact that the grain upon which snspec-
ton fees were not paid was bought by
them Ia Skagit county at an agreed grade,
price. weight and quality. and brought
In their own steamer. City % Champaign,
70 Seattle 10 be used tor feed for live
stock only. they being both conSignOrs
and consiEnees.
The grain inspector claims that the
answer does not state any defense, and
has moved for Judgment on that ground.
The question OF constitutionality will be
raised on ire argument Of this motion
The plaintiff in the case Is represented
hv Assistant Attorney General T. NJ.
Vance and Prosecuting Attorney Nc
Elroy.