The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-04-13
SAYS 1T IS A FARCE.
E,nterprise Firm Says That Kansas In
spectiOn Has Caused Heavy Loss.

| Has the Kansas grain shipper been
getting a fair deal through the state
| insDection department and have some
! of the inspectors employed by the de-
partment been incompetent to handle
| the business? Are two questions ra1s-
| ed by the Hoffman Elevator company
| at Enterprise in a letter to ID. r. Cor
don. state grain inspector. Some time
ago Mr.. Gordon sent out a circular
| discussing the new inspection fee law
and what the department proposed to
Il do It was in reply to this circular
that the Hoffman Elevator company
explained that while it wanted state
linspection that it did not think the
inspections that had been given were
fair to the shippers. The company
says that it believes the Kansas ship
pers had lost from one-half to one
million dollars in the last three years
on account of poor inspections. The
letter also indicates incompetency in
the INSPECTORS by specific instances of
sales of wheat at higher grades than
the state department allowed. The let
ter from the Hoffman Elevator COM
pany follows:
Dear Mr.. Gordon:
Your circular letter in regard to the
Iinspection charges and the inspection
departm at hand.
While we want to have our grain
inspected as cheaply as possible and
is necessary to have our grain inspected
we are perfectly willing to pay your
department whatever cost 1t is to you
to inspect our grain-especially If we
get the right grades.
There is a great question at present
as to whether the shippers of Kan
sas are getting a fair deal in the way
of inspections. We believe that the
Kansas state inspection department
was primarily organized to take care
of the shippers of the state; TO IN
spect grain, reporting the same to the
shippers or their agents so that the
buyer could not report shipped, less
grade than really was shipped-but,
we are sorry to state that during the
last two or three years instead of the
inspection department looking after
the shippers interests by giving them
"the benefit of the doubt" if there was
q doubt. in every instance that has
come to my knowledge they have
graded the grain as low as possible.
Now we don't want the inspection
department to grade any of our No.
wheat as No. 2 or 3. but it is disgust
ing to have grades that we know are
No. and 8 go to Kansas or other
markets where the Kansas state in
spection department has an inspector
and have the wheat graded a grade
lower than it really is. We have sold
thousands of bushels of wheat this
season that was graded by one of your
inspectors as No. and then sold to
millers as No. under the millers own
inspection; and I submit that a miller
really knows the value of wheat better
than the average grain inspector.
Again on giving 1.-The benefit of the
doubt if the shipper ships a car of No
8 wheat to Kansas City and it is
graded No it is sold as No. and the
purchaser takes to his elevator, unloads
it, takes it and puts it into his No. 8
bin and calls for reinspection-and this
transaction loses the shipper on, say
the present market, from cents to 10
cents a busheI or $55 to $40 per aver
age car. Take the opposite, i. e., sup
pose that We ship car of No 4 wheat
to Kansas City and your department
inspects it as No. 8, it is sold as No. g.
the purchaser takes it to his elevator
finds it to be a No. and calls for re-
inspection and on your inspection you
properly grade it No. 4; then the pur-
chaser goes to our commission mer-
chant and demands a reduction in
price, which is aIlowed-and nobody