The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-10-17

|
Now Being Argued.
| Arguments On the constitutionillity Of
| the law taxing commission men We're
heard in the supreme court yesterday.
! Two cases, those against the grain men
and the produce commission dealers, were
| taken up together Palmer & Beck APP
pearing for the latter and Wilson az VAN
derlip, OF Minneapolis, for the former.
The argument of the attorneys who at
tackled the law was that 1t was class
| legislation, and also that 1t interfered
with interstate commerce, inasmuch as
the owner Of grain living outside the
state could not employ an agent living
In this state to handle his grain for him
at any of the Minnesota terminals until
the agent had procured a license from
the railroad and warehouse commission.
1t was also argued that the law was
| an absurdity in that it gave the railroad
| commission absolutely no discretion in
regard to issuing license to persons who
might apply, provided only that they gave
| the required bond. The commission had
no authority to determine the qualiflca
lions of a commission merchant for
transacting the kind of business he was
to enter into. The commission could not
grant him a license or refuse him one
because he has good judgment or bad, or
because he had had experience or no eX-
| pcrience in that line of business and yet
these points were vital to the people
whose grain or produce the commission
man was to handle. So far as this law
was concerned, it was argued that that
applicant might be an honest man or he
might be a criminal, and still the COM
| mission would have no alternative but
to give him the license if he complied
with the provisions of the law.
The brief in support If the law, which
was presented by Attorney General Doug
las and his predecessor, H. w. Childs;
insists that the courts have no authority
| to overthrow a statute merely because
1t may be deemed unWise, or tneXpedient.
| The appeal III this case, it is contended,
must be ''to the ultimate tribunal Of
public judgment" To be overturned by
the court the statute must be In plain
! violation of some express constitutional
provision The argument continues:
1.-The evils which characterize the bust
| ness of commission merchants are OBJ
! vious and present just cause for legis-
| lative interference. The disposition by
the producer of his farm products, is
| largely dependent upon the services Of
| commission merchants. 1t is %*
| impracticable for the farmer or shipper
! to advise himself as to the personal in
| tegrity or financial responsibility of the
commission merchant The same reason
| ing which justified public regulation Of
| railroad freight rates juStifieS the regu-
latton Of the business of these who under
| take to handle for the producers and
| shippers of the state the vast volume Of
| farm products sent to market. 1t was
deemed irnpracticable to compel the in
| dividual shipper to enforce reasonable
! rates by common carriers. The expense
and annoyance were often SO dispropor-
| Tomato to the amount involved that the
| eXtortion would perforce be acquiesced
! in Surely if the state can fix the maxi
mum rate Of interest, prescribe the form
of an insurance policy and regulate, as it
| confesSe3ly can do, many of tho other
contractural relations of citizens, the law,
| in question cor,tains nothing new or start
ling in principle, but is merely the APP
| plication of q we'll recognized principle to
new subiec&."
1t is Insisted by the defenders of the
| Grindeland law that it is not discriminat-
| ing or clsss legislation. AS to the extra
labor which would be entailed on grain
| dealers the SUI porters of the law say!
w Z dIlLSI Will dI'pSllO1lI upOu IIlt
| proposition that the statute imposes an
Impossible condition of those who sell
grain. The law was framed to meet cry
| ing evils which had grown up in connec-
ton with this branch Of business.
| Reports were sometimes never made of
sales, and on other occasions were pur-
posely delayed so that it would be diff
cult, if not Impossible, for the consignor
! to ascertain the facts of given sale.
Prices of grain fiuctuated, not only from
day to day, but from hour to hour
The law has therefore studiously
| provided that the reports Of sales shall
| state the day, hour ard minute when
they were II ade. We concede that
Ii may not be quite as convenient for the
! corsignee to comply with the law in such
respect as it otherwise would be; but
this affords no just ground for the over
throw of the law"
The supporters of the law also contend
against the charge that it is regulation
of commerce or delegation of legislative,
|