Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1898-12-31
NE VICIOUS WAREHOUSE ACI
OF 1897.

The original warehouse law of iii.
nols provided in sufficiently explicit
terms that the operator of q warehouse.
class \. should receive for storage only
the grain of others. and should not
store nor deal In his own grain through
his own warehouse. If he bought or
stored his own grain an,l sold 1t. he had
an advantage which his customers did
not possess. This is the spirit of the
law of 1871 relating TO warehouses and
of its amendments up To the session of
the Doodle Legislature of 1897.
The rcasonablcness of this law Is
clearly set forth In the recent opinion
of Justice Cartwright of the Supreme
Court In the warehouse eases. lie SAYS
that where one person occupies u re-.
lation In which he owes u duty to an
other he shall not place himself In any
position which will expose him to the
temptation of acting contrary to that
duty or bring his interest in conflict
with his duty" 1t Is human as well as
divine law that no man can serve two
masters. No warchOuscnan can serve
his own Interests and at the same time
serve the Interests of his customer,
with whom hr Is In competition rs u
trader in grain. Then the court says:
courts of equity have never allowed
a person occupying such u relation to
undertake the service of two whose in
terests are In conflict. but forhids such
a course Of dealing. irrespective of his
good faith or his bad faith. II the duty
Of the defendants as public warehouse
men stands In opposition to personal
interests, as buyers and dealers In grain
storing the same In their own ware
houses. then the law intcrpOses u pre-
ventivc check against any temptation
to act from personal interest by prol,ib.
Ting them from occupying any such pc.
sitlon."
This was the implication of the law of
1871. which clearly separates the bust.
ness of u warehOusrinnn from the
business of dealer In grain. \ ware.
house Il a public utility the operations
of which are regulated by law. Its
owner. by buying grain. storing 1t In
his own bins without cost to himself
ana selling 1t out. can pay more for
grain ana sell FOR less than other trad.
ers. To prevent this discrimination the
law prohibiting warehouscmcn from
| dealing In grain was enacted.
Members of the Board Of Trade who
| suffered In business from this illici,
| competition commenced legal proceed.
lngs to stop the handling of their own
| grain by warehouscmen. The suit was
In the Interest OF every farmer ami Oi
every dealer In grain who did not own
u warehouse. While the suit was pend
Ing the Doodle Legislature OF 1877
| passed an act which apparently author.
lied warehouseinen to deal In their own
| grain.
This was an attempt to legalize by I,
corrupt statute % dishonest system Of
business under which rascally discrlm
nations might be practlced everywhere
| against farmers and honest dealers III
farm products. 1t belonged to the SAME
class Of bad. corrupt AMI scandalO,l.
legislation as the Gas Consolidation bill
and similar doodle measures Of the last
Legislature.
In considering the warehouse eases
the Supreme Court refused to reopen
the proceedings for the purpose of ad
hitting p!eadlngs ana hearing argu
ments relating to the Doodle warehouse
act OF 1897. The Inference Is plain
The court must have considered thai
the act of the Doodle Legislature wa,
void. as against public policy, In M
thorizlng vicious Determinations In tn,
business of buying ami selling grain.
| 1t Is unfortunate that the court did
not reopen the case and decide the en-
tire quesrion-that of the validity OF
the new act as well as to the illegallt!
OF dealings In grain Ivy warehOusemei
under the act of 1871. 4 full decision
would have settled for all time til,
questions involved.