Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1916-02-13

quite generally In favor or RUE re-
gardinG the uniform charge for the
storage and handling OF grain where it
is not purchased at the time of deliy.
cry by sahe warehousemen. On the
other hand, the representatives of
those elevators which are organized
upon mutual or cooperative basis,
and perhaps more clearly represent.
ing the grain growers themselves than
any other class of warehousemen, op.
posed the establishment OF any such
rule. although they themselves might
be al the time charging storage, their
contention being that each elevator
should be permitted to manage It's
own business according TO its own
methods SO long as it complied with
the law anu regulations enacted by
the commission.
Think chlrge Reasonable.
Those favorihg a compulsory stor-
age charge took the position that the
storage of grain involved the neces-
sary outlay of labor and expense
which must be paid for in some way,
and if not paid by aa reaasonble and
.legitimte charge made directly
against the person Storing the grain.
it would have, to be absorbed from the
price paid or from the profits of the
business in some way, ii the business
was 10 be profitable, and they further
contended that the granting of free
storage was an unfair method OF com.
petition and amounted 10 discrimina.
ton in the buying of grain, which in
its effect was demoraizing TO the
grain trade. On the other hand, the
opponents of the. free storage idea
cOntended that this enabled the far
mers to store their grain at the pri-
mary market during the busy season
and fall and avoided Cutting the
market with grain at any one, time,
and permitting the; distribution of the
products sof The farm over a larger
space OF time, and resulting in the
farmers themselves realizing larger
proceeds from their grain.
While the commission is impressed
with each of the contentious, first,
that uniform rule is desirable in or.
der to prevent any chance of discrimi-
nation, and second, that on the other
hand the farmer should be encouraS-'
ed 70 hold his grain from the market,
if he so desired. until snch time as
the market. would be right, yet care
full reading OF the statute convinces
us that it prohibits the commission
from making any such rule in the abb
sence of a showing that the granting
of free storage results in abuses which
amount to violation of the anti-dis-
elimination act. Revised Codes, 1913,
section BIG, provides that the charge
for storing and handling of grain shall
not exceed certain rates therein set
forth, and il would unquestionably
appear from this provision that there
would be no way to fix uniform
charge either at the maximum rate, or
any other intermediate point down to
nothing, hence If WarehOuSeman
prefers to store his customers grain
for nothing. the law would seem to
grant him this privilege.
Make No Ruling.
While the commission would insist
upon its jurisdiction TO make rule
which would prevent any abuses grow
ing out of this practice that would
violate the spirit or letter of the anti
discrimination act, before we would
be justified in taking such a step we
would have to be thoroughly convinc.
ed that evils Of this sort existed, and
in view of the fact that although
warehousemen of the state were quite
generally represented at the confer
ence, no specific complaint was made,