Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-06-11
SECRETARY OF C0-OPERA-
TIVE SOCIETIES TELLS OF
FEDERAL INSPECTION.
INSPECTION vs. SUPERVISION
With the Matter Under One Cen.
trail Head Greater Efficiency
Would Result.

mittee on Agriculture presents the
sentiment of the people who are be-
hind the farmers ele"ator companies
in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, North Da-
kcta, South Dakota, Nebraska and
Kansas, whom l represented at that
time. In these seven states there are
more than 1000 farmers elevator
companies, with $2S 1000, 900 invested
in business by a membership of more
than a quarter of a million farmers.
.., Five Reasons.
The farmers elevator companies
desire Federal inspection of grain en-.
tering into interstate commerce for
the following five reasons:
l.. Because it removes the appoint
ment of the inspector as far as pos
sible from local influence. ~
2. Because inspectors should be
entirely impartial.
3. Because an inspection system
should not be supported by a%ppropria-
lions by the Federal government.
4. Because a system of appeals is
not desirable.
5. Because the Federal govern.
ment inspires confidence. ..G
Base Claims on Efficiency.
We base our first contention on our
conception of the relative efficiency
of different inspection departments.
The least efficient and most unfair to
the country shipper is the inspection
by the buyer which includes inspec-
ton by boards of trade and Similar
organizations where the inspector is
elected by and paid by the buyer or
organization of buyers. Such an in
spector must of necessity have upper.
most in mind the interests or his EN-
ployer. One step in advance is the
inspection by the state. This is a
better system because it partially re-
moves the influence of the buyer in
appointing inspectors and takes the
inspector out of the employ Of the
buyer. The objection to this system
is that it is a local system over which
no control in an initiative way.
Inspection Would be Uniform.
A still further step would be made
by Federal supervision, which would
secure uniform rules of inspection,
but would not emove the local influ-
ence that inspectors must work I'M
der as they would still remain in the
employ of the local inspection de-
partments. The most efficient in
spection would be that by the Federal
government itself because under that
system any aggrieved citizen of the
United States would have a legitimate
cause for complaint and a proper
authority to whom he could complain,
and the local political influence over
the appointment of inspectors would
be as nearly removed as is possible.
Shipped Has no Representative.
Our second contention is that since
the country shipper has no represen-
tative at the terminal markets this
disadvantage should be removed as
far as impartial inspectors would re-
move it, and the nearest possible i'm
partial inspector will be the Federal
inspector, who is in the direct employ
of the Federal government.
A Third Reason.
In support of our third contention
it is very evident that Federal inspec.
ton can be supported entirely with
out a regular appropriation for the
government. A grain inspection sys:
TEN should be self-sustaining.
should not be hampered by the ne.
cessity of running the gauntlet of a
Federal appropriation each year.. A
system of Federal inspection can by
a charge for each inspection be made
a seA-supportlng system. A system
o. Federal supervision can only col
lect q charge when a service is rem
dered which will not yield the amount
of e necessary to support the
system. The appropriations OF the
Federal government have already
reached such proportions that they
should not be increased to support a
grain inspection system and this is
especially true when the system can
sustain itself. To avoid the necessity
for an appropriation will also tend to
rid the system of political influence.
inspection, Not Supervision.
We favor Federal inspection rather
than Federal supervision because
Federal supervision will be a system
of appeals. The country shipper who
is not present when his grain is in
srected at the terminal market ear
not successfully avail himself of the
appeal protection. What he is inter-
ested in is a thorough impartial sys.
tenn in which the occasions for ap-
peals will be reduced to the minimum.
Federal inspection will do this more
nearly than any other system.
v. S. is Thorough.
Lastly we favor Federal inspection
for the reason that the Federal gov
eminent is efficient, thorough, posi-
tive, and above all impartial. For
this reason a system of grading by
the Federal government will secure
confidence in the system that cannot
ne secured in any other way. This
confidence is now needed at the pres
ent time to assist in establishing a
uniformity in grading that is SO lack
ing in the grain trade.
To Summarize.
The situation may be summarized
by saying that every country shipper
must abide by the inspection placed
on his grain by some other party.
This being the case he will be best
served by inspectors that are working
along uniform lines, that are the most