Chicago eagle., 1899-01-07
7HE VICIOUS WAREHOUSE ACj
OF 1897.

TIE original warehouse law of Illi
nois provided in sufficiently explicit
terms that the operator of a 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 and 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 It's amendments up TO the session of
the Doodle Legislature of 1897.
The rcasouablcncss of this ,aw 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 re-
lation in which hc owes n duty 10 an.
other lie shall not place himself In any
position which will expose him to the
temptation of acting contrary 20 that
duty or bring his interest in conflict
with his duty 1t Is human as well as
divine law that 10 man can serve two
masters. No warch0uscman can serve
his own interests and at the same time
serve the interests of his customer.
with whom he is in competition as u
trader in grain. Then the court says:
Courts of equity have never allowed
a person occupying such n relation to
undertake the service OF two whose in
tcrcsts are In conflict. but forbids such
course of dealing Irrespective of his
good faith or his bad faith. If the duty
OF the defendants rs 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 a pro-
ventive check against any temptation
to act from personal interest by prOhib.
ltng them from occupying any such po-
| sitiOn."
This was the implication of the law of
1871. which clearly separates the busi-
ness of u warchouscinan from the
business of u dealer In grain. a ware.
house Is a public utility the operations
of which are regulated by law. It's
owner. by buying grain. storing It In
his own bins without cost to himself
and selling 1t out. can pay more for
grain and sell for less than other trad.
ers. To prevent this discrimination the
law prohibiting warehousemen 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 warchousemen. The suit was
In the interest OF every farmer and Of
every dealer In grain who did not own
Il warehouse. While the suit was pend
Ing the Doodle Legislature of 1901
passed an act which apparently author
lied warehouscmen to deal in their Owi
grain.
sThls was an attempt to legalize by d
corrupt statute dishonest system OF
business under which rascally discrlm
nations might be practiccd evcrywher,
against farmers ana honest dealers II
farm products. 1t belonged to the sam,
class of bad, corrupt ana scandalOu,
legislation as the Gas Consolidation bill
and similar Doodle measures of the las
Legislature.
In considering the warehouse casc'
the Supreme Court refused to reOpci
the proceedings for the purpose of nd
hitting pleadlngs ana hearing argu
ments relating to the Doodle warehOus,
act of 1897. The Inference is plain
The court must have considered tina
the act of the Doodle Legislature wa
void. as against public policy, In nu
thorizlng vicious determinations In til,
business of buying ana selling grain.
| 1t Is unfortunate that the court dl,
not reopen the case ana decide the cn
tire questiOn-that of the validity o
the new act as well rs to the illegalt.
Of dealings In grain by warehousemel
under the net Of 1871. A full decision
would have settled for all time tn
questions involved.