HD 9030.9

D
il

Tn

mann
a

 

st CONGRESS, { SENATE. Document
st Session. ; - | No. 116.
” te?
H9o3

Lo

AIN GRADING AND INSPECTION AND INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN GRAINS.

  
  
    
    
    
     
    
   
  
   
 
   

Mr. McCumper presented the following

TTERS RELATING TO GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE IN GRAINS.

DECEMBER 18, 1907.—Ordered to be printed as a document.

The early grain trade of the United States was conducted entirely
»y personal inspection of the grain by the purchaser, or by the exhi-
sition of samples by the producer or dealer, and the price was deter-
emined by the demand and the peculiar fitness of the grain for a given
‘purpose. Under such conditions there was no stability of market,
rand at times the price of a given quality varied greatly at different
érminal markets. In cases where it was impossible to submit sam-
les or make personal inspection the grain dealer made a statement or
orm of certificate as to the general quality or condition of a particu-
ar quantity of grain.he was offering for sale. As the volume of
usiness increased, the use of these statements or certificates became
more necessary, and it was found that the practice of individual deal-
ers issuing their own certificates was not satisfactory. The matter
@ wt was taken up by trade organizations, and certificates were issued by
¢ «& officers selected by these bodies, and a system of dividing the different

#® varieties of grain into several different grades was devised. This
“76 system was adopted by nearly all the boards of trade and chambers of
“aff commerce in the country, and the certificates issued were to a great
ne’ extent accepted in interstate and international trade, though some
t-£ trading was done and still continues to be done by submitting samples.
. In 1885 the State of Minnesota adopted a plan of having inspection
‘and grading of grain made by State officials elected or appointed by
_» the Government, and this plan has been adopted by several other

*” States. Under this system devised by the grain dealers and boards of
® trade the price of grain was fixed by the grade given, and almost as
# soon as the system was established protests were made by producers
% all over the country, and the matter was taken up bv the farmers’ or-
' ganizations, such as the Farmers’ Alliance, etc., and Congress was
‘petitioned to enact legislation to provide for standard inspection that
f would make equal grades in all the markets of the country.
2 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

In the Fifty-second Congress (1892) two bills were introduced in
the Senate—S. 380 by Senator Paddock and S. 797 by Senator Sher-
man—to provide for the Federal classification and grading of grain.
The bill S. 797 was favorably reported April 28, 1892, and passed the
Senate and was favorably reported in the House and debated, but
failed of passage. _ ; ; ;

In the same Congress a similar bill was introduced in the House by
Mr. Doan.

During the early part of the Fifty-second Congress Senator Casey
presented petitions from residents of North Dakota for the enactment
of a national law for the classification and grading of grain.

On April 13, 1892, when the bill reported in the Senate (S. 797)
was under consideration, Senator Sherman in his remarks said:

The passage of this bill is, I believe, requested by nearly all the farmers’ al-
liances in the United States, especially in the Northern States where wheat and
these cereals .are grown. Hitherto, the rules of classification have been deter-
mined by ,the various boards of trade. * * * J was about to say that not
only‘ Have some of the State legislatures asked-for this uniform rule, but the
farmers’ alliances have requested it. I have many letters about it.

In his annual report, transmitted November 15, 1892, pear of
Agriculture Rusk calls attention to the matter and makes the follow-
ing recommendation (p. 64):

NATIONAL STANDARD OF GRAIN.

Another matter which is the subject of legislation now pending is that of a
national standard of grain. There is evidence in the correspondence of this.
Department of a steadily growing feeling in favor of the establishment of such
a national standard, which will relieve the grower from the annoyance insep-
arable from the existence of several standards, varying in the different grain
markets of the country. Unquestionably some system of national inspection
and grading under the control of the Secretary of Agriculture should be estab-
lished in the interest of the grain growers and would be, without doubt, in a
very short time, accepted and recognized in all the great market centers of the
United States.

In support of Federal inspection he calls attention to the Federal
inspection of meats, as follows:

As a result of the meat inspection already executed under the direction of
this Department we have raised the standard of taste in this matter among
consumers themselves; witness the increased price willingly paid not only in
our own markets, but abroad for meat bearing our certificates of inspection.
The second object to be thus accomplished is that which has already, in a
very satisfactory degree, attained, but which must be sedulously maintained—
the reputation of our meat products abroad.

_In the Fifty-third Congress Senator Casey introduced a similar
bill for Federal inspection of grain.

In the latter part of the Fifty-seventh Congress (1902) Senator
McCumber introduced the bill (S. 7009) for national grain inspection
and grading, but no action was taken on the bill.

At the beginning of the Fifty-eighth Congress, November 11, 1903,
Senator McCumber reintroduced the bill as 8. 199, and on March 30,
1904, he made extended remarks on the bill in the Senate which
brought on protests and indorsements of such legislation from all the
grain trade centers of the country and the grain-raising districts of
the United States.

On December 6, 1905, at the beginning of the Fifty-ninth Congress
Senator McCumber reintroduced the bill as 8. 151, and the bill was
Missing Page
4 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

vestigate the alleged unfairness of the Minnesota grain inspection
and grading system. The resolution was in substance as follows:

_ Whereas it has been freely charged that the department of grain inspection
has become corrupt; that the inspection has been in the interest of the buyer as
against the shipper and producers; that grain has been inspected in as No. 2 or
3 and inspected out as No. 1; that the dockage has been unreasonable, unjust,
and excessive; that the department has employed incompetent and corrupt men
as inspectors; that the only qualification necessary to secure a place on the force
was a political pull; that a large number of men have been employed that have
performed no other service for the State save and except they have regularly
drawn their salary; that the freight charges on farm produce have been extor-
tionate, unequal, and unjust; that the distribution of cars for the shipment of
grain has been unequally distributed and often withheld from independent ship-
pers; that the public elevators, licensed by the State, have formed unjust and
corrupt combinations to buy grain at from one to two grades below what it ac-
tually was, and to take excessive dockage: Now, therefore,

Be it resolved, That a joint committee be appointed to thoroughly investigate
all these charges and report by bill or otherwise at their earliest possible con-
venience.

That the committee shall have full power, etc., to send for persons and papers,
ete.

The resolution was adopted.

On April 17, 1899, that committee from the Minnesota legislature
reported as follows:

We find from the evidence produced:

1. That the grading of wheat has not been uniform; that prior to the month
of October the new crop of wheat had not been graded solely on its merits, it
being the policy of the inspection department to give lower grades than later.

2. That the system of appeals from the inspector’s decision is impracticable
and of little benefit.

3. That it appears that some of the inspectors have been incompetent or care-
less.

4. That the weighing of grain at the terminals is carried on in a loose manner.

5. That the farmers suffer a great loss by shipping uncleaned wheat and by
loading wheat into dirty and unswept cars. ;

From the investigation had before this committee, it clearly appears to this
committee that wheat inspections have not been uniform throughout the year.
That the grading of wheat has been rigid during the first three or four weeks of
each season and less rigid during the balance of the year, and we can not in too
strong language condemn this practice, as it must necessarily result in great
loss to the producer, from the fact that a large proportion of the crop has been
marketed before the change takes place, and on all the wheat sold prior to that
time the loss must necessarily fall on the producer.

No good reasons have been produced by the department of inspection, in the
testimony taken before your committee, to convince this committee that the sys-
tem in vogue in the department can result in anything but a dead loss to the
producer and must necessarily be to the advantage of the buyer. To prove this
we quote the following testimony.

Testimony of Mr. Clausen, Chief Inspector.

Q. Now, the chief complaint before the committee is that early in the season
the inspection made by our inspectors is very severe against the producer, and
that subsequently, about the middle of October and later, much more liberal
grades were given to the producer.—A. I will concede that statement is true,
but it is true of every crop of wheat we have ever handled since the department
started in 1885. * * *

Q. But that don’t explain the original proposition which we started with—
that it has always been that the grade was more severe early in the season and
grew more liberal as the season advanced.—A. Now, we start out conservatively
every year. We don’t know what we have got to contend with until we get into
it, so.as to understand it. * * .*

Q. You don’t give the farmer early in the season the benefit of the doubt.—
A. We take the benefit of the doubt until we get started. We don’t know what
we are going to get into. If we should get the grain down below the standard,
we could never get them back.
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 5

Testimony of Mr, Tunnell, chief deputy at Minneapolis.

Q. Do you mean to say that you do not inspect too closely ?—A. No, sir; not
if the wheat is of the same quality.

Q. You have testified that earlier in the season you have to inspect closer ?—
A. Yes, at the very.start.

From this testimony it appears clearly to your committee that the wheat early
in the season is not inspected on its merits, but from an overcautious desire on
the part of the department to keep up what they think is necessary to keep up
the standard of grade. It appears that this rule of rigid inspection continues
from three to four weeks, and that the country buyers become overcautious in
buying, and in order to protect themselves generally continue the rigid inspec-
tion for three or four weeks after the inspection department at the terminal
points has changed their system of grading.

The system of rigid inspection early in the season does not commend itself to
this committee as being either just or necessary to carry out the idea of just
and impartial inspection. And we strongly recommend the department of in-
spection that this rule be discontinued, and that wheat should be graded upon
its merits. Wheat should be graded No. 1 because it is No. 1, and for no other
reason.

Judging from the number of complaints in regard to inspection, it has be-
come apparent to your committee that the present system is far from perfect
and has in a large measure to depend upon the judgment of the inspector, and
no system has as yet been in vogue in the department that has resulted in a uni-
formity of grading. Upon this point the committee has sought to find a solu-
tion, if possible, of a better system and has taken the testimony of Mr. Chauncey
KE. Foster, inspector and chemist of the Northwestern Consolidated Mills at
Minneapolis, who testifies :.

Q. I understand you to say that wheat can be tested to a mathematical cer-
tainty according to this rule?—A. Yes, sir [gives rule].

Q. Does your mill buy under this rule?—A. They buy a great deal under this
rule. We have the samples brought about if we use this test.

(He further testified that one lady could probably test samples of 400 cars in
one day.)

(The above report is printed in full in the senate journal of the Minnesota
legislature for 1899.)

On January 14, 1899, the North Dakota legislature adopted the fol-
lowing resolution :

Resolved, That whereas much complaint has been made, and much dissatis-
faction exists as to the grades fixed upon grain shipped from this State by the
grain inspectors of the State of Minnesota,

And whereas in the inspection of said grain the authorities of the State of
North Dakota have no voice, ;

Therefore a committee * * * be appointed to visit and consult with the
proper authorities of the State of Minnesota, with a view of securing coopera-
tion and suitable legislation in the States of Minnesota and North Dakota to
provide for a representative of the State of North Dakota to confer with and to
assist the inspector of grains in Minnesota in fixing proper grades upon grains
grown in North Dakota and shipped to Minnesota terminals.

The resolution was adopted and the committee appointed.

The committee met and organized and spent over two weeks exam-
ining and investigating the conditions as they existed at the terminal
points of Minneapolis, Duluth, and Superior. © a

They asked through the press for information as to irregularities
and suggestions as to remedies for relief, and a large number of affi-
davits and letters were received. ;

On February 20, 1899, the committee rendered its report to the
North Dakota legislature, in substance as follows:

There is no doubt in the minds of our people that irregularities do exist in
grain inspection.
6 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

REMEDIES SUGGESTED AND OBJECTIONS TO EACH.

First. Doing away with all inspection.

This would be a step backward, because while the inspection of wheat
neither adds nor takes away from its. value it simply gives it a certificate of
character by which it can be identified and transferred, and the value of a
certificate of character depends upon who issues it, what is behind it, and its
general reliability. By this certificate of character people are enabled to sell
the grain to those who have never seen it or may never see it or to borrow
money on it under like conditions, and so long as the certificates are reliable
and represents what it purports to be, buyers are safe and anxious to handle
the grain on it, and banks and money lenders are ready to advance funds on it.

Second. Inspection in North Dakota at terminal points along the eastern
boundary.

This would be impracticable because it would necessitate the building of
large terminal elevators at all points and the making arrangements with rail-
roads to allow unloading and inspection at through rate. The extra cost
would be a burden upon the producer rather than a relief.

Third. Inspection at Superior under the laws of Wisconsin.

This would simply be for the purpose of making competition between Duluth
and Superior markets and would afford no relief.

Fourth. Inspection at Superior with a view of superseding Duluth inspection.

This would simply be taking the matter from one State and giving it to
another.

Fifth. Minnesota inspection as it now is and means of bettering the same.

This would not give any relief particularly, as it would still leave the matter
entirely in the hands of the chief inspector of one State and would not remove
the doubt from the minds of the people.

Sixth. Federal inspection under civil service.

The interests involved in the inspection of grain in the United States or any
considerable portion of it is altogether too great to be subject to the influence
of local State politicians. The existence of a large number of complicated
systems do not, we believe, result in any additional good to grain raisers and
shippers or to anyone else concerned, but on the contrary, lead to dangerous
manipulations of grain in large quantities, and dishonest, unhealthy specula-
tive deals, which can not but discredit and cripple the trade. The right of the
people in every State to be heard in the matter of inspection of grain can not
be disputed. It seems imperative that the inspection be done at lake or tide
river points. Neither the large elevators, railway and vessel interests, or the
interior agricultural interests should be interrupted or be subject to interrup-
tion by State politicians or by the local ambitions of vessel port cities.

SOLUTION.

Provide Federal inspection under the Secretary of Agriculture, by districts,
with districts for Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, North Atlantic, South Atlantic,
Gulf, North Pacific, South Pacific, and such other points as are necessary, all
under civil-service rules, which shall provide that all applicants for inspector
must have had not less than five years’ experience as buyers of grain and also
pass an examination by satisfactorily grading a large number of samples. The
grades may be continued as now, but accepted by Federal officials. This plan
would give all interested the right to a hearing, and would increase our foreign
trade under an unchanging and reliable inspection. * * *

We believe the results from Federal inspection as outlined above would be
manifold. The character of our products as represented by the certificates
would have the backing of the United States behind them, and the certificates
would be accepted all over the world as readily as our currency, and the trade-
mark on the product of North Dakota would be U. S. With Federal inspection
you have removed the last barrier between our producer and the world’s mar-
kets and we could feel assured if he sell a ear of dry marketable grain he will
get the same grade for it at which it is sold the consumer. When this result
is obtained the question of marketing grain will be wonderfully simplified, and
the spread betweer producer and consumer reduced to the lowest point.

We will not go into the matter of Federal inspection any more, as it is our
ee to introduce a joint memorial to Congress asking for the enactment of
such law.
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 7

On February 6, 1899, a special meeting of the directors of the board
of trade of Duluth, Minn., unanimously adopted strong resolutions
condemning the present system of grain inspection.

On January 29, 1903, the North Dakota legislature adopted a joint
resolution, as follows:

Whereas Hon. l’. J. McCumber, a Senator of the United States from the State
of North Dakota, has introduced in the Senate of the United States Senate bill
No. 7009, a bill to provide for the fixing of a uniform standard of classification
and grading of wheat, flax, corn, oats, barley, rye, and for other purposes; and

Whereas the house committee on grain grading and dealing have carefully
examined the provisions of the bill and believe that its enactment into law
would be of incalculable benefit to all farmers engaged in the raising of the
various grains enumerated in the bill, by correcting the many inequalities of
inspection and grading existing under the statutes of the various States: There-
fore be it

Resolved, That we indorse the provisions of the bill introduced in the United
States Senate by the Hon. P. J. McCumber, a Senator from this State, and re-
quest our Senators and Representatives in Congress to secure, if possible, its
enactment into law.

The engrossed copy was transmitted by the speaker of the house to
Senator McCumber and duly presented to the Senate of the United
States and referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

On February 18, 1903, in a resolution to the legislature of Wiscon-
sin to establish a joint grain commission, the North Dakota legisla-
ture embodied the following:

Whereas the system of inspection and grain grading prevailing at Minneapo-
lis, Duluth, and other terminals under the control of the grain and warehouse
commissioners of Minnesota has resulted in great injustice to the grain pro-
ducers of this State and such producers are demanding relief through this legis-
lature.

On January 13, 1905, the North Dakota legislature unanimously
adopted the following concurrent resolution:

Whereas a bill has been introduced in the Senate of the United States by Hon.
P. J. McCumber (S. 199) to provide for the fixing of a uniform standard of
classification and grading of wheat, flax, corn, oats, barley, rye, and other
grains; and

Whereas it is a well-established fact that grain can not be inspected conven-
iently or in any practical manner excepting at the terminal markets, viz., the
markets now established at points of transshipment, or large milling centers;
and

Whereas many of the States have no such terminal markets within their
borders and are dependent upon the systems of grain inspection established
under the laws of neighboring States, which laws lack uniformity, and’ are
sometimes executed unfairly ; and e

Whereas the natural markets of North Dakota, the great wheat State, are
Duluth, West Superior, and Minneapolis, beyond our State lines, and our grain
is inspected under laws enacted by legislatures in which our people are not rep-
resented ; and es ;

Whereas such inspection has proved unsatisfactory and has occasioned great
injustice to our grain growers: Now, therefore, ?

Be it resolved by the senate of North Dakota (the house of representatives
concurring). That we desire the establishment of a system of grain inspection
by Congress of the United States, the only legislative body in which we have
representation which can properly deal with the subject. :

(2) That we believe the grain growers of North Dakota are in favor of the
passage of Senate bill No. 199, and that if a system of grain inspection is estab-
lished thereunder it will result in great benefit, not only to the grain growers of
North Dakota but to every farmer in the United States. .

That an engrossed copy hereof be forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture
and each of our Senators and Representatives.
8 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

Again, in 1907, the legislature of North Dakota adopted similar
resolutions and filed a memorial to Congress praying for the passage
of such legislation.

Specific instances of the unjustness of present system of grain
grading.

In an article written by H. C. Stivers in the Superior Evening Tele-
gram of May 2, 1903, he says: :

I wish here to state the astounding fact that the official reporters of the Min-
nesota grain-inspection department, together with the reports of the Duluth
Board of Trade, show that during the past ten years the amount of wheat
shipped out of the grain elevators at the head of Lake Superior was 26,868,000
bushels more than the total amount received during the same period by the
same elevators. The amount of wheat in store at the beginning of this period
was about the same as the amount in store at the end of the period. That is,
the wheat received in Superior and Duluth during the past ten years weighed
26,868,000 bushels more when it was weighed out of the elevators than it did
when it was weighed in, all of which surplus of wheat, worth, at 75 cents per
bushel, more than $20,000,000, was net profit—clear, unearned gain, for the
elevator companies. As the elevator people have to give full weight when
they sell grain, the presumption is that the grain growers of the Northwest
were robbed in the weight of their grain in a manner that would make Dick
Turpin green with envy. Twenty million dollars is enough to lav a dollar on
every foot of the distance of 3,787 miles. It is not difficult to see the reason
why the elevator people insist that the day for changes has gone by and that
the permanent and unchangeable manner of weighing, inspecting, and handling
grain has been fixed for all time to come.

Another fact which comes from Superior, and which was published
in one of the papers there, is as follows:

In 1898 a Duluth firm, with offices in Minneapolis, sold to Joseph Leiter, or
his representative at Duluth, 200,000 bushels of No. 1 northern wheat. When
the time for delivery drew near the selling firm was unable to obtain the
necessary wheat of that grade at Duluth. It shipped from Minneapolis this
amount—that is, 200,000 bushels—of wheat out of the Peavey elevators at Min-
neapolis, where it was inspected by the Minnesota grain-inspection depart-
ment as No. 1 northern. The cars arrived here, but the deputy inspectors
refused to put a grade of No. 1 northern on the wheat, on account of the poor
quality. The receiving firm called for reinspection, but the chief inspector
at Duluth also refused to mark the grade No. 1 northern, as also did the board
of appeals, which is supposed to be the highest court as far as inspection at
the head of the lake is concerned. The difference in price at the time be-
tween No, 1 northern and No. 2 northern was in the neighborhood of 60 cents
a bushel, making the difference in price of 200,000 bushels of No. 1 northern
and No. 2 northern $120,000. Through the influence of the grain ring, of
which the selling firm was a leading member, they succeeded in having the
Minnesota inspection department send a special inspector from Minneapolis
with instructions to grade this lot of wheat of 200,000 bushels No. 1 northern.
This was done and the grain ring made a profit of the above difference in
price.

In an opinion given April 20, 1906, on a motion for temporary in-
juction in the case of the Globe Elevator Company, complainant, ».
Homer Andrew, M. F. Swanston, John D. Shanahan, Byron Kimball,
Peter S. Cristienson, Great Northern Railway Company, and North-
Pacific Railway Company, defendants, Honorable Justice A. L. San-
born of the circuit court of the United States for the western district
of Wisconsin, says:

The testimony further shows that according to the reports of the railroad
and warehouse commission more grain was reported and certified as having
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 9

been shipped out of Duluth and Superior than was received into these cities,
after deducting from the grain received the grain that was milled or ground
into flour and other food products, one witness placing the amount at 26,000,000
bushels for the ten years from 1893 to 1902, inclusive. The testimony shows
that this was brought about partly by docking all grain that arrived in the city
from one-half to 7 or 8 pounds per bushel, whereas there was no dockage on
grain shipped out of the city. There was also an arbitrary dockage in
weights of grain going into the elevators of one-half bushel per car. There was
also an undergrading of grain as it arrived in the cities of Superior and Duluth,
and an overgrading of the same grain when it was shipped out of these cities,
the reports of the railroads and warehouse commission showing that a less num-
ber of bushels of the higher or best grades was received in than was shipped
out, and a larger number of bushels of the lower or poorer grades was received
in than was shipped out. The price of grain is fixed by grades. Consequently
when grain is received into Superior at a low grade and shipped out at a high
grade the seller of the grain arriving in Superior receives a less price than the
purchaser pays for the same grain when it is shipped out, the profits of course
belonging to the middleman—the elevator company.

In his remarks on this subject in the Senate of the United States on
March 30, 1904, Senator McCumber said:

In my own personal experience I have known a special bin in an elevator to
be filled with wheat from a single field, wheat that I knew was absolutely uni-
form in character, quality, weight, and cleanliness. This grain was thoroughly
mixed in that bin and loaded into two cars, and yet when it was inspected one
car went No. 1 northern, with very little dockage, and the other car, of identi-
eally the same kind of grain, was graded No. 2 northern, with about three times
the amount of dockage. Every bushel of this grain was No. 1 northern in
quality. It had never had a drop of rain on it from the time it was harvested
unitl it was graded, and therefore there could not have possibly been this dif-
ference. ?

Colonel Benton, an extensive wheat grower, in an address made before the
Tri-State Grain Growers’ Association at Fargo, N. Dak., dealing with the sub-
ject of the present inspection, says:

“T have watched with some interest the grading of grain for the last twenty-
six years in the State of North Dakota. The reason that I have watched this
grading is. because I have more or less grain to sell every year. The first few
years that we grew grain in North Dakota we could get the grades that were
offered, according to the rules that were to govern that grade. They finally
established the rule that where grain weighed 58 pounds to the bushel and had
75 per cent of No. 1 hard wheat, that it was No. 1 hard wheat. Two years ago
the inspectors from Minnesota sent word to the elevator at Wheatland, the
place where I market my wheat, that they would give the No. 1 hard grade for
no wheat. They told me that they could not give No. 1 for any wheat. I have
seen wheat this year weigh 61 pounds, pure Scotch Fife wheat, graded as No, 2
and sold for the No. 2 price.

“T have seen but one car of wheat this year sold in Wheatland as No. 1 hard
wheat, and it was from the same field and thrashed the same way that another
car was that went No. 2. For the last ten years the grading of the wheat we
have raised in North Dakota has been governed by Minnesota inspection. Last
year an attempt was made to pass a grain-inspection law in Wisconsin. We got
no relief from it. We have trusted to the Minnesota legislature for the last ten
years. * * *

“Tf you go to the North Dakota legislature and pass any law that you want
to, you can not enforce it, for when it comes to Duluth it is out of the jurisdic-
tion of North Dakota and her laws. You can not establish State laws for the in-
spection of grain that will apply to all of the States. You can make a move like
this (a national inspection law), which is in the right direction, and have a
universal authority for the grading of grain, and then in Minneapolis they will
only have to pay what the grain is worth. They need not be afraid of paying
too much for the wheat so long as the Government says that the wheat is
worth so much—and I want to say here that the raising of grain, and the grow-
ing of wheat that is No. 1 hard, and having to sell it for No. 2 or No. 3, and
ribet ea is getting played out. This is plain talk, but we are right at a crisis

ere,

27464—S8, Doc. 116, 60-1——2
10 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

Prof. H. L. Bolley, of the North Dakota State Agricultural College, discussing
the subject under consideration, says:

“As a teacher of agricultural botany, I am not often interested in legislative
features, bills in Congress, ete., but in regard to this matter of grain inspection,
every year since I have been in the Northwest it has been becoming clearer and
clearer to me that the manner in which the cereal products of the farm are
graded and handled on the market is on a most simple and childish basis for a
Government which professes to have such an educated farming public and such
an efficient Department of Agriculture to oversee matters. Our agricultural col-
leges and experiment stations are spending an immense amount of energy in
instructing the farmer just how to raise the cleanest and most perfect type of
each of the cereal grains, and they are meeting with success.”

In a letter from a member of the North Dakota State legislature, and one ex-
tensively engaged in farming and shipping of grain, he says:

“T want to congratulate you upon the bill you are working to get through
with reference to securing a national system for the grading of wheat. I re-
gard it as one of the most important measures that affect the agriculural
interests of the Northwest. Under the present system the farmers are being
robbed every year of at least one grade of their wheat, and in this way: In
the fall of the year, when they have to market their grain, the inspection at
Minneapolis and Duluth is very rigid, and for the last two years it has been
almost impossible to secure a better grade than No. 2 or 8 northern, and usu-
ally at a pretty heavy dockage. Now, were it not for the faet that as soon
as the grain is out of the farmers’ hands this damnable inspection loosens upon
the grades, and the elevator people who have graded the grain 2 or 8 northern
are allowed to deliver this wheat for No. 1 northern on contract sales.”

In 1903 a committee of the North Dakota State legislature, in conjunction
with a committee from the Wisconsin legislature, sought by their combined
efforts to find some source of relief. They were forced to fall hack on Federal
inspection and grain grading. This committee made a thorough investigation of
the subject of wheat inspection and grading and officially found conditions
about as mentioned. The report of Hon. George M. Youne, a member of this
committee, says:

“That such abuses exist is a matter of almost universal knowledge among
our farmers, who have been systematically robbed ; but in addition to the facts
presented by our farmers and in corroboration thereof I call tu your attention
the official report of the chief inspector of grain of the State of Minnesota,
showing the total receipts and shipments of grain for the year ending August
21, 1901, from which I quote.

“No. 1 hard—receipts, 341,567 bushels; shipments, 1,000,438 bushels.”

More than three times as much No. 1 hard was shipped out in those three
years as was taken in.

“No. 1 northern—”

That is a very good grade of grain—

“receipts, 10,070,414 bushels; shipments. 16,900,917 bushels.

“No, 2 northern—receipts, 7,341,594; shipments, 3,978,311.

“No. 3 spring—receipts, 1,335,830; shipments, 444,041.”

It will be seen that of the higher grades the amount shipped out always
exceeds by two or three times the amount taken in, while of the lower grades
the amount taken in exceeds from two to three times the amount shipped out.

“No. 1 hard—receipts, 341,567; shipments, 1,000,438.

“No. 1 northern—receipts, 10,070,414 ; shipments, 16,900,917.

“No, 2 northern—receipts, 7,341,594; shipments, 3,978,311.

“No. 3 spring—receipts, 1,335,830; shipments, 444,041.

“ Rejected—receipts, 256,063; shipments, 134,471.

“No grade—receipts, 1,835,521; shipments, 344,823.”

The Modern Miller, a weekly journal published at St. Louis, Mo.,
clevoted to the milling and grain interests of the country, in its issue
of November 16, 1907, prints the following editorial concerning Fed-
eral grain inspection:

: Some of the exchanges of the country, as well as the grain dealers’ associa-
tions, are going to make a determined stand against such action (Federal grain
inspection), and the Grain Dealers’ National Association has made a strenu-
ous effort for uniform grades and inspection rules, in order to anticipate the

growing demand for Federal inspection. Many of the exchanges of the country
indorsed the uniform grades adopted by the grain dealers, but, after several

e
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 11

years’ work in that direction, we may say that no practical result has been
attained, or, at best, no real commercial results of this work are in evidence
in the principal grain markets.

Several years ago the Modern Miller, noting conditions existing in the grain
trade in Kansas City and St. Louis, showed up numerous practices which could
not live and be tolerated by millers. The evidences of improper inspection and
grading of grain and of sharp practice in the shipping and handling of wheat
were very clearly presented by us, and these practices stood as an indictment
against both board of trade and State inspection. The uncompromising fight
between boards of trade and State control and supervision has been going
on for years, and is still going on in a number of markets. The hoards of
trade will not work in harmony with State officials wherever there is a possi-
ble chance of the board securing direct control of this work.

While agitating this subject we sent out letters to the principal millers of
the country to ascertain whether or not they favored national inspection. The
replies showed a substantial majority of the active millers of the country re-
plying to our inquiry favored national inspection. Nor did the millers mince
words in discussing this subject, as the replies we hold in our possession show.
The decided and emphatic expressions favoring national inspection, from prom-
inent millers, were numerous. The summary of these replies were printed at
that time, but the question is likely to come up again and urged for national
legislation, and it is well for the millers to think about it.

The exchanges of the country may properly blame themselves—no other
agency—for the demand for Federal supervision. Had they vigorously pun-
ished members guilty of improper conduct they might have hoped for trade
indorsement, but in many cases they voted to indorse their own acts and were
short-sighted enough to imagine that indorsing their own acts meant ‘“ trade
indorsement.” In one grain case a board of trade member was suspended for
thirty or sixty days, for substituting cars of doped wheat to be delivered under
certificates given for strictly No. 2 red. In this flagrant offense the inspector
who “showed up” the offender was “ boycotted” and for the dealer, who had
no tangible defense, a petition was circulated and widely signed by exchange
members, asking that he be reinstated.

It was such acts as these which created such prejudice in favor of national
inspection. One of the leading millers of the country, opposed to national
inspection and hoping for a return to strictly honorable trade practices, wrote
to us:

“ Self-protection will ultimately compel each and every prominent grain mar-
ket to adopt and rigidly enforce equitable rules and regulations and to visit
serious or deliberate infractions with the most severe penalties. They will dis-
cover that honesty is not merely the ‘best’ policy, but an absolutely essential
policy.”

Since the Modern Miller had its tilt with the ‘‘ trade usages” in some of the
exchanges there has been a notable «hange in the grain-trade practices of the
West. We have been given some tardy appreciation of this recently from
sources slow to commend.

It is now asserted in Washington that practically the entire grain trade is
arrayed against national inspection. One of the largest grain handlers of the
West, now retired, wrote the following reply to the Modern Miller inquiry above
referred to:

“National inspection of grain is most certainly desirable, and I so recom-
mended as chairman of the grain committee of the St. Louis Merchants’ Ex-
change in October, 1903. This was considered by the entire grain committee at
that time, in response to a communication from the Department of Commerce,
referring to ports of clearance especially. My reasons favoring national inspec-
tion are, briefly, that uniformity of grades can not be obtained otherwise on
account of conflicting rules of warehouse commissioners and State laws regard-
ing same in different States. I believe millers in the United States and in the
foreign trade have been imposed upon by inspection as now conducted, and
more especially as regards elevator grain in our local markets, and also through
elevators at ports of clearance, which seriously affects domestic and foreign
business.”

The grain trade will present an active opposition to Federal inspection, and
such opposition is desirable, as only by such means could a bill be drawn and a
law perfected to provide a well-considered method of grading and inspecting
grain. The work of the Uniform Congress will help the Government in solving

 
12 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

this problem, making use of the standards which the Uniform Congress has
presented to the exchanges and secured their indorsement thereof.

National grain inspection is getting closer, but must pass through the “ refin-
ing” process of strenuous opposition, as the rate bill did.

A summary of the replies to the letters serit out to the principal
millers of the country referred to in the foregoing editorial was
printed in the issue of the Modern Miller of September 29, 1906, as

follows:
FOR AND AGAINST NATIONAL GRAIN INSPECTION.

In order to determine the views of the millers of the country on national
grain inspection, the Modern Miller last week sent out several hundred circulars
inviting prominent men in the trade to express their opinions on the subject.
It seems certain that national grain inspection will be an issue the coming year,
and there will be a determined effort to enact a law in which we feel the millers
have an interest.

Do the millers have confidence in board of trade or State grain inspection?
What are the points favoring national inspection, and for what reasons is it
opposed ?

Sixty-one per cent of the millers replying to our request for an expression of
opinion favor national grain inspection; 24 per cent are against national inspec-
tion, and 15 per cent are undecided or do not care to express an opinion. From
only one State—Minnesota—were the majority of replies against national
inspection. Minneapolis and Chicago undoubtedly have the best State inspec-
tion of any of the principal markets, and millers who are tributary to these
markets and do not contend with some of the troublesome features of inspec-
tion which are notable in Kansas City and St. Louis are naturally more favor-
able to State inspection and not interested in a change to improve conditions.

The millers of the Middle States are more nearly unanimous for national
inspection. Board of trade inspection found practically no supporters, and only
seattering replies showed confidence in the ability of the State to provide intel-
ligent and honest inspection, with proper punishment for graft or inability
to “resist influences.” There were some notable exceptions, however, to this,
and they are worth consideration. We find it impossible to give space to all
the replies received. We have selected a number which set forth most clearly
the reasons for and against national inspection.

A Louisville, Ky., miller writes: ‘‘ National inspection of grain is decidedly
desirable in onr opinion. We do not believe it possible to secure uniformity in
grades by State or board of trade inspection. Such a large percentage of grain
that leaves the farm becomes interstate business that we think national laws
eovering the inspection and weighing of grain would be perfectly legal, and the
uniformity thus secured is bound to be beneficial to all engaged in handling
this commodity.”

An Indianapolis miller: ‘ National grain inspection is very desirable, but only
on condition that it will be under rigid civil-service regulations. General uni-
formity of grades would be very difficult to bring about by State or board of
trade inspection. I favor national inspection, because, under proper civil-
service regulations, it would be removed from local political influences ; because
inspection in one market would have to stand in another; because it would tend
to do away with a great deal of elevator manipulation that is now current.”

Another Indiana miller, who owns a large mill, writes: “ Yes, decidedly in
favor of national grain inspection. State politics are too rotten and boards of
trade controlled by cliques in their own interest. There is absolutely no sound
argument against it from the standpoint of the greatest good to the greatest
number.”

A Minnesota mill: “We favor national inspection and believe it would pre-
vent much of the mixing and bring the wheat to the mill as it comes from the
farm. We do not believe that grades would be changed to suit local political
conditions.”

A St. Louis miller: ‘ We favor national inspection of grain to secure uniform
classification and grading and unvarying inspection.”

A St. Louis miller: ‘“‘We most emphatically favor national grain inspection.
Having Government inspection would make the inspectors more careful and
more respectful of the law, as they would be liable to imprisonment if they did
not comply with the law.”
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 13

An Illinois mill: “ We favor national inspection because any change from
the present system will be an improvement.”

A South Dakota mill: “ We think national grain inspection is desirable.
National inspection would be unprejudiced and consequently fairer. Board of
trade inspectors naturally favor board of trade members from whom they get
their job.’

An Illinois mill: ‘ We favor national inspection because the Government
controlling inspections and inspectors would not be subject to local influences
to the extent that present inspections are, and the interests of all parties would
be given greater consideration.”

A Missouri miller, who for many years was the head of a prominent grain
firm in St. Louis, makes a particularly interesting reply : ‘“‘ National inspection
is most certainly desirable. I so recommended as chairman of the St. Louis
Merchants’ Exchange Grain Committee when the matter of national inspection
was considered by the committee, in response to a communication from the
Chief of Bureau of Department of Commerce, O. P. Austin, which communica-
tion referred especially to ports of clearance. I do not think it is possible to
secure general uniformity of grades by State or board of trade inspection.
Uniform grades can not be obtained otherwise than by Federal inspection, on
account of conflicting rules by warehouse commissioners and State laws regard-
ing grades in different States. I believe millers in the United States and the
foreign trade have been imposed upon by inspection as now conducted, and
more especially as regards elevator grain in our local markets and also through
elevators at ports of clearance, which seriously affects domestic and foreign
business.”

A Kansas miller: “ National grain inspection is desirable because it would
-give greater uniformity and stability of grades, because ‘in’ and ‘ out’ grading
would be the same, and because men of larger caliber would find their way into
Government service than in State or exchange service.”

A Kansas mill: “ We are in favor of national inspection, providing uniform
grades can be established. Uniformity is not possible now, as each State or
board of trade is interested in its own local advantages. Under national in-
spection millers would help to establish a more uniform value of the grain, and
enable us to meet competition on a safer basis.”

A Kansas miller: “ National inspection is desirable. We favor it to secure
uniformity of grades for all sections and do away with graft and favoritism.”

A Texas miller: “ National grain inspection is desirable at grain centers.
We favor it because national action is usually honest and fair to all parties
concerned.”

Strange to say, a large number of millers favored national inspection because
it would be free from political influences, while, on the other hand, fully four-
fifths of those who are against national inspection are opposed to it because
they do not favor “mixing politics with business.” The predominant note in
the replies of those against national inspection is “too much politics.” Thus
some favor in order to get rid of politics and others are against it because they
fear “ politics.”

An Illinois miller says: “The greatest advantage and reason for national
inspection is the fact that it will be removed from political influence, which is
about the hardest thing we have to contend against.”

An Oklahoma miller: “ National inspection is desirable. It will give greater
uniformity and cut out favoritism.”

An Illinois mill: “We favor national inspection because there would be
less chance for favoritism and more uniform grading. Inspectors could be
frequently transferred to facilitate uniformity and prevent fraudulent grading.”

A Kansas miller: “Federal inspection will be better enforced than under
present conditions, and it will make a better market for wheat. Millers buying
a certain grade under present lax methods of inspection can not be sure of
getting the grade they contract for, but under Federal inspection millers could
buy No. 2 hard or No. 1 northern and be absolutely certain they will get what
they bargain for.”

An Oklahoma mill: “ We favor national inspection because political influence
would be eliminated.” : .

A southwest Missouri miller: “ Judging from experience it looks like an im-
possibility to secure proper and uniform State or board of trade inspection. I
favor national inspection because it would take the matter out of polities anc
away from the diverse interests connected with every board of trade and grain
14 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

market. Government inspection in other lines seems to be effective and im-
partial.” : :

A Nebraska mill: “ We favor national inspection to secure greater uniformity
and greater care on the part of inspectors.” Se oe _ .

Those opposed to national inspection assign “politics” and red tape” as
the principal reasons for their convictions. In the South State rights seem to
enter as a factor and a number of southern millers do not Jike too much na-
tional interference, Some of these, however, would waive these reasons as a
“last resort.’ We regret that several prominent millers against national in-
spection so replied without giving their reasons. One well-known and highly
esteemed miller of Indiana doubts the practicability of Federal inspection and
is against it because “ graft is too likely.” : ;

An Ohio miller: “I doubt if national grain inspection is desirable. It is
possible to secure general uniformity in grades by State or board of trade in-
spection by the boards of trade cooperating to establish a uniform standard,
and, above all, inspections strictly on the square. By national inspection we
might be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. There is too much poli-
tics in business done from Washington. Uncle Sam has plenty to do without
mixing too much in business affairs. The boards of trade ought to have enough
business sense to know it is to their interest to give everybody a square deal.
If they do not, they are the losers.”

A Toledo mill: “ State inspection being a failure in every State, we would not
favor national inspection. Politics and grain inspection do not go together.
General uniformity of grades is desirable, and should be obtained through
board of trade inspection.”

A Kentucky mill: ‘‘ National grain inspection is not desirable. It would get
into politics and would be bad for the service. National matters are not run on
economic lines.”

A Tennessee mill: ‘‘ We are emphatically opposed to the Government taking
any part in business matters or endeavoring to regulate commerce. At the
same time the present manner of inspection at all markets is so rotten and so
variable that we are almost in favor of a change of any kind.”

A Minnesota miller: ‘‘I do not think national inspection of grain desirable.
If we are not careful we will soon have everything done for us by the Govern-
ment. Honestly and intelligently conducted board of trade inspection should be
fair to all. Politics are a great drawback to State inspection now. Why should
not the same objection be even more pronounced with national inspection?”

A Minnesota mill: “It is possible to secure practical uniformity of grades
by State. The State inspection of Minnesota shows this. But the milling
value of a certain sample of wheat depends somewhat on the opinion or taste
of the individual miller. Its value can not be expressed in exact terms. Any
system of inspection depends for its success on the intelligence and honesty of
the inspectors. Rules may have to be modified without too much delay to meet
unusual conditions arising at the opening of a new crop. Surely the States in
which grain is of paramount importance are better able to cope with these
difficulties than the nation at large.”

A Dakota miller: “I do not think national inspection desirable. Wheat
should be sold on its merits in open market or by sample. Inspection is only a
guide.”

An Ilinois mill: “ We do not think national grain inspection is desirable. ---~

We are afraid of politics (too much Bryanism).”

Another Illinois mill: “ National inspection is not desirable. It may not be
possible to secure general uniformity of grades by State inspection, but such
evils as do arise, there is much more probability of righting in the State than
at Washington. We are opposed to either State or national inspection, because
it should be done by the parties interested.”

A Kansas mill: ‘We see no advantage in national inspection. Our opinion
is based on the poor results obtained from State inspection.”

A Kansas mill: “ National inspectors are too likely to be appointed for politi-
cal reasons regardless of fitness.”

An Oklahoma mill: “ We doubt the desirability of national grain inspection.
It would require red tape and lawsuits to settle differences.”

St. Louis miller: ‘‘We are against national inspection because State inspec-

tion shows no improvement. The further we remove politics from business the
better.”
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION, 15

A Galveston mill: “We do not think it would be prudent to invite Govern-
ment interference in general business affairs. The people are satiated with
Government interfereuce in private affairs.”

A Texas mill: “ We are against anything run by politicians.”

An Oklahoma mill: “'Think inspections should be removed from politics. If
we must have Government inspection, let it be done by the States.”

Some of the replies were noncommital. A Tennessee mill favors national
inspection only as a last resort, and would favor national inspection only when
shown practicable, believing, however, it would secure correct and honest in-
spection.

An Indianapolis mill is for honest inspection. ‘ United States inspectors
‘might’ be more independent of local influences and find honesty the best policy,

-but Government inspection would probably disregard the special needs of the

various markets,”

From the above, we feel that the trade can secure a good idea of the views of
the millers in a general way. It was not the intention of the Modern Miller
to have the millers go into details and explain fully the advantages and disad-
vantages, but rather to ascertain the principal and underlying reasons and to
test what percentage of prominent mills were in favor or agairfst national
inspection. For this purpose it was not necessary to put the mills on record by
printing names. The underyling reasons are set forth and the percentage of
millers for and against is indicated.

Mr. Schoffield from the Department of Agriculture says: “I have been for
approximately two and a half years devoting most of my attention to the in-
vestigation of commercial grading of grain in the United States. I think I
have visited every important grain market in the United States, some of them
several times, have become acquainted with the men doing the work of inspec-
tion and in most.instances with the men who control the inspection, in five of
the States, the railroad warehouse or grain commission, as the case may be,
which is composed either of elected or appointed men, and in other cases where
the inspection is controlled by some committees of the chambers of commerce
in the large trade centers. The most obvious remedy which occurred to me for
the defect, which every honest man must know exists in the grain inspection
of this country, was to effect if possible an arrangement whereby the inspec-
tion of grain might be carried on under national control either in the Depart-
ment of Agriculture or through the Bureau of Commerce. I find, for instance,
that there are eight distinct classes of wheat grown throughout the United
States, three distinct classes of corn, two distinct classes of barley, only one of
rye, one of buckwheat, and one of oats.

“Class 1 is what I have described as red spring wheat, which includes the
well-known varieties of fife and bluestem, which are grown in the region of
eastern Wisconsin and northern Minnesota, North and South Dakota, and ex-
tending across the boundary into Canada. In that we use the grades of No. 1
hard and No. 2 winter and No. 8 spring, rejected, and no grade. Then we
have the grade known as hard winter wheat which is composed almost exclu-
sively of the variety known as turkey wheat; is grown in Kansas, southwestern
Oklahoma, Iowa, southern Minnesota, southern Wisconsin and to a limited
extent in Illinois. It is composed of the grades known commercially as No. 1
hard winter, No. 2, and No. 3, and rejected. I think there is in most markets a
No. 4 also. Then there is soft red winter wheat, which is grown in Missouri,
certain portions of Kansas, eastern Oklahoma, northwestern Texas and from
there eastward. It is composed of such varieties as Little May, Mediterranean
Northern Fife, and almost endless varieties of local names. That comprises
the larger class of the winter wheats; it is called in commerce after the grade
names of No. 1 red winter, usually prefixed by the term ‘soft.’ Then we have
class 4 of a white winter wheat east of the Rockies, which is composed of J ones
amber and Michigan white and a number of local names, which compose in
volume not nearly so large a class of soft winter wheats, but are grown to as
large an extent as the soft winter wheat except that they are grown more to
the northern and eastern portion of the northern wheat belt, and especially in
northern Indiana, Maine, western Pennsylvania, and southwestern New York.

“Then there is class 5, a class of very relatively small importance, being the
white spring wheats grown in the western portion of Nebraska, in California,
and to some extent in Wyoming and Montana. They go in with the soft winter
wheats, but are spring-sown wheats.
16 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

“Then we have class 6, one of a large group of wheats, ill white. They
are generally known west of the Rockies and in the Sacramento River Valley,
also in the Columbia River Valley, as blue-stem wheat. It is the highest grade
of the white wheats of the Pacific coast region, selling there from 3 to 12 cents
sbove the vther wheats grown there. and is sold when nearly pure under the
grade name of “high milling” and when mixed with club or other varieties
which comprise the other classes it is known as No. 1 milling. ;

“Another class of importance is the one known as ‘club. It is grown
in the San Joaquin Valley, east to some extent in the Sacramento Valley,
throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and certain areas as suft white wheat
of poor quality, and ix composed of varieties with variations of the name of
‘club, such as ‘July club, ‘ Oregon club.’ and a number of local names.

“These comprise the seven important classes of what we know for conven-
ience ax grade wheats, and wheats which are used ultimately for bread, pastry,
breakfast foods, and things like that. In addition to these seven classes there
are, however, a number of smaller classes under local names which hardly
deserve ranking as full classes, of which might be named such a variety of the
group of long-berried, soft winter wheats, which are distinet from other winter-
crown soft wheats, as they give very white flour. In the north we have such a
wheat known us Senore, distinct from the other classes in shape of berry and
quality, and not of large commercial importance.

“Not nearly so much grain is now being sold in Europe on Atlantic coast rates
or grades as was sold a few years ago. The most successful exporters of grain
now sell their grain upon previously submitted reports, and have much better
satisfaction and more profitable sales. The tenor of the reports coming in
seems to be that our business with foreign countries is injured by the selling
of an inferior grade of wheat for No. 1; at least our American consuls think so.
There is a wrong impression among the European countries regarding grain
inspection as carried on in the United States. They realize that the meat inspec-
tion is controlled by the Government, and when buying grain they receive what
looks to them an official certificate accompanying this grain. They seem to
think this grain inspection is under Government control; at least they see no
reason why they should get a large and impressive certificate from here if there
was not some official back of it. So we have received many letters from there
making charges against our Atlantic coast inspection, which has: hurt our trade,
and, if I am informed correctly, this matter has been several times brought
before our Department of Commerce and Labor, and it seems to be the opinion
there that it does not only affect our trade in grain, but has a discouraging
influence on all of ouv exports to some extent. The grain dealers themselves
seem to appreciate the fact that we must have « more uniform system; they
realize that they are being overrun by Argentine Republic and Russian grains,
and they have been considering the possibility of remedying the existing
systems for a long time, relatively speaking. .

“As TI stated a short time ago, I believe any system of national inspection
will affect the grain dealer most, and will meet with their bitter opposition, but
there is a thing to consider, I believe, and that is that you in this bill are
attempting te devise what the great majority of farmers want and at the same
time whit the great majority of grain dealers want—not a majority in point of
influence, but a majority in point of numbers. The grain dealers, in other
words, are struggling as hard as they can to get at the same thing which you
are in this bill. There is a certain element of the grain trade which in point of -
nunibers is insignificant, but which in point of influence is very important, who
do not desire and will not permit, if they can help it, any system of either
uniform or national control.

“Grain inspection to be materially improved must have a greater degree of
accuracy than is now found anywhere, except in the flax inspection. If you
ONE the metho of grain inspection at the present time, you must know that
these men who do the inspecting go on the track where these cars come in early
in the morning, as soon as daylight. They go up to the ear, pry the door open,
then climb up, feel of the grain, if possible; if the car is not too full they probe
if with the grain prier, look at it, and decide in their own mind whether it is
NO. Lor No. 2, whether it is winter, and whether it has 2 pounds dockage or 3
pounds, They weigh it when they have a new man, or at the beginning of the
senson when they are having a little trouble with fresh wheat. They sometimes
inks the weighing bucket with them and weigh a small quantity of the wheat
eae aan io door, but this is done very oceasionally, for when one inspector

se spect 75 to 80 cars he has no time to stop and weigh. Furthermore,
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 17

if he even did weigh this grain, if he submitted 3 handfuls, he would not come
as near to it by weighing it as if he guessed at it, for it is an inaccurate weigher
and the weight depends entirely upon the way the grain falls into the bucket
and the manner it settles. Very little of it is ever weighed. It is true of the
great majority of the markets where this grain is inspected that, theoretically,
they take the bucket with them, but practically they leave it in the supply
house at the other end.”

Report of investigation by North Dakota Bankers’ Association made
November 23, 1906.

To Members North Dakota Bankers’ Association:

Your committee appointed to investigate the subject of grain in-
spection and grading, as affecting the interests of North Dakota
shippers, met according to arrangement at Superior, Wis., on the
morning of September 27, and, after a preliminary discussion as to
the scope of the investigation, proceeded to visit some of the terminal
elevators in order to familiarize themselves with the methods of
handling grain as it comes from the shipper. We found that grain
is inspected, graded, and the dockage fixed by the State inspector
under the rules of the Minnesota grain inspection board. The grain
is then ordered into one of the terminal elevators and after being un-
loaded is elevated to the top of the elevator where it is weighed.
During the process of elevating all grain is subjected to a suction
draft in order to keep the building free from dust (?). This is an
injustice to the shipper as, in our judgment, all grain should be
weighed immediately upon being unloaded and nothing should be
taken from it before it is weighed. The amount of light grain and
dirt taken, out under the present method simply depends upon the
force of the suction draft.

We obtained a statement showing the grain of various grades
shipped in and shipped out from one of the larger elevators during
a period of three months, the dockage actually taken out, and the
profit in mixing the grain so as to raise the low-grade grain to that of
higher grades. In our judgment a much smaller dockage is actually
taken from the grain than that taken by the country elevator or fixed
by the official inspectors. We find that all of the dockage or screen-
ings taken from the grain has an actual value and believe the shipper
should receive this value. This matter of dockage is one that could
be so easily remedied and the shipper given the benefit of the screen-
ings actually taken from his grain that the wonder is the present
unjust custom of not only confiscating the screenings, but in addition
compelling the shipper to pay the freight on them to the terminal
point, has been allowed to prevail so long. | ;

We find that eastern millers want the grain as it comes from the
farmer and it is an injustice to the shipper and to the miller to pre-
vent this, as is now done. The shipper must accept the inspection,
rules, and customs which have been forced upon him by the powerful
combination of elevator and railway interests, and the miller must
take the grain that is offered him by the “ grain trust,” so called, and
not in the condition as to mixing, that he wants it. ;

In examining the report above referred to, of grain received and
grain shipped out of the terminal elevator we were able to get a

27464—S. Doc. 116, 60-1—_3
“18 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

report from, we found that during the three months covered, the
report showed the following grain received and shipped out:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECEIPTS.
Bushels,
No. 1 Northern ae 99, 711. 40
No. 2 Northern 141, 455. 10
No. 8 Northern las 272, 047. 20
No. 4 201, 267. 20
No grade 116, 021. 10
Rejected 59, 742. 30
890, 245. 10
SHIPPED OUT.

No. 1 Northern 196, 288. 30
No. 2 Northern 467, 764. 00
No. 3 218, 459. 30
No. 4 None.
No grade None.
Rejected None.
877, 512. 00

On hand, estimated 12, 733. 10
890, 245. 10

The screenings actually taken out of the grain received averaged
three-quarters of a pound to the bushel. From our knowledge of.
the dockage taken at country elevators and also of that fixed by
official inspectors at terminal points during the period named, we
believe this dockage of three-quarters of a pound actually taken
from the wheat to have been very much less than that taken from the
shipper or farmer. These screenings sold for about $8 per ton.
After this dockage of three-quarters of a pound per bushel was taken
out the grain was shipped out as clean grain without.any dockage.
What an eloquent story is told by the above figures. The fact that
nearly 100,000 bushels more of No. 1 Northern, the highest grade
taken in, was shipped out than was received speaks so loud against
the present system and rules of inspection that it is simply unneces-
sary to go on down the line and call your attention to the fact that
nothing lower than No. 3 wheat was shipped out.

The profit in mixing the receipts of this elevator for the three
months, as shown by their report, was $83,720.69. In order to arrive
at the probable profits of the terminal elevators there should be added
to the above the amount realized from the screenings, the charges
for handling the grain, and the proceeds of the sale of wheat and
other grain taken from the screenings, for we found that all screen-
ings are carefully cleaned over and all good grain taken out, and that
the good grain taken from the screenings is shipped out as screenings
in order to avoid inspection and appearing in the amount of grain
shipped out of the elevator. We are of the opinion that grain hos-
pitals, either independent or in connection with terminal elevators,
should be established, where shippers could have “ off grade” grain
cleaned or scoured at a reasonable cost before it is offered. for sale,
the shipper to pay this expense and receive the benefit resulting from
such treatment of his grain needing treatment in a hospital elevator.
We also favor the amending of existing laws governing the handling
of grain by terminal elevators so as to allow no more grain of a
given grade to be shipped out than is taken in.
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 19

Your committee found much to criticise by visiting the freight
yards, in the careless manner in which cars are handled by the rail-
road companies and the very poor class of grain doors used. The
amount of grain lost by leakage from cars and by the careless shunt-
ing and switching of cars in the yards is very large.

All the foregoing are of course matters of minor importance as
compared with the apparent combination of the railroad and elevator
interests in forcing all grain received at terminal points to be in-
spected under Minnesota inspection rules. A competitive market
was established under Wisconsin inspection at Superior. The Wis-
consin law provides that the grain and warehouse commission shall
consist of three members, one from Wisconsin, one from New York,
and one from North Dakota. Under this law the shipper in this
State has a representative on the board, and the influence of this rep-
resentative can be of great benefit to our shippers if his duties are
conscientiously performed.

This board appoints all inspectors and weighers and can see to it
that inspection and weighing is honestly and properly done. Our
shippers were undoubtedly greatly benefited during the time the Wis-
consin inspection was in force, but by the apparent combined efforts
of the interests above named this Wisconsin inspection is inoperative
end all grain received at the head of the Lakes must be inspected by
Minnesota inspectors under Minnesota rules.

The story of how the Wisconsin law was made absolutely inopera-
tive is an interesting one. The Duluth Board of Trade made a rule
that no member of the Duluth Board of Trade could hold member-
ship in a similar organization within a hundred miles of Duluth.
This was done to compel all grain men doing business at the head of
the Lakes to'confine their business to Duluth. Then all terminal
elevators located in Superior suddenly were closed as public eleva-
tors and became private elevators operated by individuals holding
leases. As private elevators they were able to discriminate in the
business offered them, and this discrimination took the form of refus-
ing to receive grain inspected under Wisconsin rules and by Wis-
consin inspectors. It does not require anything further to show you
how Wisconsin inspection was put “down and out,” and why all of
our grain must now be graded, inspected, and weighed under Min-
nesota inspection rules.

Your committee attempted to have a hearing with the Duluth
Board of Trade and met with some of the officers and members of
that board for this purpose.

Exceptions were taken by members of the Duluth Board of Trade
to the fact that Senator Hudnall, of Superior, Wis., had been invited
to be present at this meeting. Senator Hudnall had asked the privi-
lege of speaking at our last association convention on the subject of
the grading and inspection of grain, and during the course of his
remarks had made statements to which the Duluth Board of Trade
had strongly objected. The object of your committee in having him
present at the conference with the board of trade was to get at the
truth or falsity of the statements made, to which exceptions were
taken by the Duluth Board of Trade.

Members of the board of trade absolutely refused to proceed with
the conference while Senator Hudnall was present, notwithstanding
the fact that your committee stated if the conference could not pro-
20 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

ceed while he was present his statements would have to be accepted
as facts by the committee.

Objections were also made by members of the board of trade to the
stenographer who was present at the request of your committee.

Your committee withdrew from the conference for the purpose of
considering the objections raised by members of the board of trade.
Being present at the invitation of the board and feeling that our
request to have Senator Hudnall present long enough to go over the
statements made by him at our convention, to which exceptions had
been taken by the board, was not unreasonable, and also feeling that
an effort was being made to throw such restrictions around the con-
ference as would make it of no value whatever to the committee, it
was finally decided that we would withdraw and not attempt to pro-
ceed further with the conference at that time. The committee there-
upon retired from the conference. ;

Following this attempt at a conference with the Duluth Board of
Trade your committee entered into correspondence with a large
number of eastern millers. This correspondence was of considerable
interest and disclosed the fact that the eastern millers can not obtain
grain at Duluth except in the condition it is offered them as to mixing.
They want a certain proportion of grain of good grades just as it
comes from the shippers, but can obtain it only after it has been mixed
and the higher grades reduced in quality.

Your committee also asked for an interview with the Great North-
ern Railway Company officials in order to request that the Great
Northern elevator at Superior be reopened as a public elevator and
that all opposition to Wisconsin inspection by the railway company
be withdrawn. This interview was arranged, and on Tuesday morn-
ing, November 18, Senator Cashel, Senator Young, and Mr. Mac-
fadden, of the committee, met with Louis W. Hill, first vice-president,
B. Campbell, fourth vice-president, and Mr. Braaten, of the railway
company, at the company’s office in St. Paul. The railway company
contended that it was absolutely impossible for a large elevator to
operate under the Wisconsin inspection law owing to the fact that
the law made it possible that any shipper or receiver of grain could
demand of the elevator company a special bin, and that a small
amount of grain stored in special bins would completely tie up the
capacity of the elevator.

It was also pointed out that shippers could demand both Minnesota
and Wisconsin inspection on the same grain, and that while either
inspection would be satisfactory to the railway company, traffic was
impeded and great annoyance caused where both inspections were
demanded.

Other objections were raised to the Wisconsin inspection law and
the statement made that the Great Northern Railway Company would
open its elevator as a public elevator just as soon as these objectionable
features could be eliminated from the law.

The proposition was also made by the railway company to lease any
or all of their elevators at Superior to an organization of independent
shippers, to be formed in North Dakota or to include shippers of North
Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota, on a basis of 4 per cent interest
on the investment in the elevator. The lease to be made for one year
or longer with the privilege of being canceled by the lessee at any
time by giving thirty days’ notice to the lessor railway company.
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 21

This a to your committee seems to be the solution of
many of the problems of correcting the evils and injustices now in
existence in the handling of grain at the head of the Lakes, and your
committee will now take up the matter of perfecting an organiza-
tion to take one or more of the Great Northern terminal elevators
with the independent shippers of the State. By an organization
of this kind the shipper can retain complete control of his grain.
He can obtain the value of all screenings taken from his grain. The
eastern miller can obtain grain in just the condition he wants it
and 2 competitive market at the head of the Takes can be reestab-
lished.

Your committee is of the opinion that the reforms outlined will
be of material benefit to the grain growers of the State and will be a
stepping-stone to a better system of inspection, viz:

Federal inspection, which would do away entirely with the many
conflicting inspections established in the various States.

Respectfully submitted.

JouN L. CasHEL,

Grorce M. Young,

IF. W. Caturo,

M. IF. Mureuy,

W. C. Macranpen,
Committee.

 

Memorials and resolutions of grain growers’ associations in favor of
national inspection,

The Tri-State Grain and Stock Growers’ Association passed the
following resolution, unanimously, January 19, 1906:

Whereas Senator McCumber, of this State, has introduced a bill in the United
States Congress to provide for a national inspection and for fixing a uniform
standard of classification and grading of wheat, flax, corn, oats, barley, rye,
and other grains, and fer other purposes; and

Whereas the personal experience of the farmers of the Northwest has shown
the necessity of a measure of this kind; and .

Whereas such a law would not only give the producer the grade to which he
is entitled, but would make it so that the purchaser could rely on the quality
of the grain bought in whatever market it might be obtained: Therefore be it

Resolved, That we hereby heartily indorse the principle proposed in this bill
and ask Congress to speedily pass the same that we may obtain relief from the
injustice which we suffer under the present existing conditions.

I certify that the above resolution is correct as passed by the Tri-
State Grain and Stock Growers’ Association of Fargo, N. Dak.,

January 19, 1906.
J. A. JoHNSON,
Secretary.

 

[Memorial adopted by antigrain trust meeting, held at Salina, Kans., January 15, 1907.]

FEDERAL INSPECTION OF GRAIN.

Too much can not be said and done in favor of a national inspection
law. We have no uniform inspection of grain and cotton, the princi-
pal farm products which are so largely dealt in and which are of such
great importance to both the producer and consumer. A shipper of
22 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

grain can not send a car of wheat from one point to another with
any degree of security at the present time, take all the precaution he
may. A shipper at some point in Kansas may have a car of grain
inspected at some point in the State as No. 2, send it to Missouri,
where it is inspected by the Missouri State grain inspection depart-
ment as No. 3; the same car of grain may be forwarded to Illinois and
there inspected as No. 4, and from Illinois it may be sent to New
Orleans, and there inspected as “no grade;” discounted from place
to place anywhere from 1 to 15 cents per bushel, until it falls into the
hands of the trust exporter, when it 1s again inspected as No. 2 and
sold for No. 2 at No. 2 price, the difference falling into the hands of
the trust instead of the farmer and producer. Under present condi-
tions, the different interests and influences are so diversified that the
degree of uncertainty in making a shipment of grain is so great, as to
what it will inspect at the different points of destination, that it
makes the transaction next to, if not altogether, a gambling one. For
instance, the inspection of grain in Kansas is done by the State; in
Missouri it is done by the State; in Illinois by the State; at Galveston
by the board of trade and at New Orleans by the board of trade; at
Baltimore by the board of trade; at New York, Buffalo, and Boston
by the boards of trade, all controlled and influenced by local condi-
tions, the inspectors at the different points owing their positions to
some local political organization or board.of trade. For example, we
will take Galveston. The board of trade there is dominated by a few
exporters, who appoint the inspectors who inspect grain which is
bought from the Central West by these dominating characters, on
Galveston weights and grades, and it is a fact that during the past
crop year, although 85 per cent of the grain going into Galveston has
graded below No. 2, all the way from No. 3 down to “no grade,” and
has been discounted from 1 to 15 cents per bushel; then, when it
became the property of the same dominant characters of this board of
trade who appointed the inspectors, this same grain was inspected
by these same inspectors, nearly, if not quite all, No. 2, and the
records of this department will show this state of affairs.

Therefore, by the very nature of existing conditions, the farmers
and producers of this country can not hope to get just and fair treat-
ment in the inspection of their grain, notwithstanding the fact that
all inspection charges are at last paid by them. It is a notorious fact
that the standard of grain which is traded in to-day on the boards of
trade is so low that there is not a miller in this country who would
think of putting it into his mill or use it for the manufacture of
flour. The same rule applies to other commodities, especially cot-
ton, of which there is at this time in the city of New York 70,000
kales which are covered by certificates issued by the New York
Cotton Exchange that are deliverable on contracts made on that ex-
change, which, however, are worthless for commercial purposes, evi-
denced by the fact that there is not a spinner in this country who
would think of using it. On account of these practices there has
been a meeting of dealers in London and one in Berlin, representa-
tives attending these meetings from all over Europe, to protest
against the low grade of grain coming from America, and these con-
ventions are now sending a delegation to this country to protest
sgainst these practices and to insist on establishing a trade on rye
terms, which means European weights and grades.
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 23

I believe that with Federal inspection of grain the standard made
and maintained, good enough for first-class commercial purposes,
would be of incalculable benefit to the producers of this country and
be the means of reestablishing the good name of America in all the
world for her farm products, and thereby reap a reward in obtaining
better prices.

Federal inspection should be under civil service rules; an inspector
should know that the only requirement must be efficiency and duty;
he should not owe his position or the continuance of same to any
local political organization or board of trade, as is the case to-day.
The inspection of grain and cotton should be uniform, at all points
alike. A Federal inspection certificate should be as current as money
anywhere, not only in the United States but in all the world. It is
a notorious fact that the different State inspection departments will
not inspect a car of grain at one point in the State as No. 2 and
guarantee it to inspect No. 2 at another point in the State 75 miles
distant. Indeed, it is impossible to have a car of grain inspected in
Kansas City, Kans., with any assurance or guaranty that it will
grade the same at a point 500 feet away across the State line. Few
people know this, perhaps, but it is a fact nevertheless. I take it that
under Federal inspection of grain and cotton that merchandising in
those commodities would not be, as it is to-day, so considered, andl is
in fact, the most hazardous of all lines of trade, but, on the other
hand, could be handled with safety.

Our Representatives in Congress can not be urged too strongly
upon the importance of Government control of the inspection of
many commodities, especially grain and cotton, the same as the
Government inspection of meat. We must have it. The present sys-
tem of inspecting grain and cotton to-day is the greatest weapon in
the hands of the grain trust, and it should and must be taken from
them before the farmer will get justice.

Sauna, Kans., January 15, 1907.

Be it resolved, That this convention adopt the above memorial
and make it apply to the Federal weighing as well as inspection of
grain, and that a copy of the same be sent to the President and Rep-
resentatives in Congress.

C. W. Peckuam,
Chairman, Haven, Kans.

E. C. Dow tne,
Secretary, Solomon, ans.

FARMERS’ INSTITUTE.

We, the farmers of the county of Barnes, State of North Dakota,
meeting and assembled in Farmers’ State Institute, held in Valley
City, N. Dak., the 25th and 26th days of January, 1904, deeply feel-
ing the wrong and injustice of the present system of grain grading
and inspection, manifestly conducted for the benefit of the millers
and grain buyers of Minnesota and at the expense and serious loss
to the farmers and grain growers of this State, and believing in the
unjust and unbusinesslike arrangement whereby and through which
the grain buyer and miller fixes the grade and quality of the grain
24 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

produced by us, and in the absence of any law or means by which
said grain can now be graded and inspected by the producers, and
that depriving the buyer and miller of such rights and privileges and
clothing the Federal Government with the sole power to weigh,
grade, and inspect the grain will be a great and lasting benefit to
all agricultural interests of this and other States. _

Now, therefore, we do hereby resolve that the bill introduced
* #* * dn the United States Senate, now pending, known as the
“ McCumber grain-inspection bill,” which provides generally for the
Federal inspection of grain at terminal points, meets our most hearty
approval, and we recommend that the utmost efforts be taken by our
Representatives in Congress and all honorable means employed to
effect its passage.

The North Dakota Retail Grocers’ Association, in convention as-
sembled at Grand Forks, N. Dak., February 18, 1904, adopted the
following resolution:

Resolved, That the North Dakota Retail Grocers and General Merchants’
Association commend the McCumber grain-inspection bill, and, believing its
passage would be for the best interests of the farmers of North Dakota and
for the interests of the members of our association, we, therefore, recommend
its passage and urge our Congressmen to use their best influences in securing
the enactment of the Dill.

 

[The Farmers’ Cooperative Grain and Supply Company, Minden, Nebr., December 4, 1907.]
RESOLUTIONS.

Whereas Senator McCumber, of North Dakota, has announced that
he will introduce his bill again for national inspection of grain; and
whereas President Roosevelt has recommended to Congress the pas-
sage of a bill providing for uniform Federal inspection of grain.
Whereas reports from abroad call our attention to complaints made
by foreign purchasers against the grades of American wheat, con-
sular reports show upon investigation, that the wheat upon arrival
in Europe does not grade up to the commercial standard because of
the dishonest methods practiced by our grain dealers of mixing a
lower grade with a higher grade (macaroni with our hard wheat of
the West).

_ fesolved, That it is the sense of this board that all grain should be
inspected and graded by the Federal Government and when exported
should carry with it the seal and proper authority, so that it should
have with it absolute confidence in every grain market of the world.

Resolved further, That we heartily indorse Federal inspection and
call upon our representatives in National Congress now assembled’
a everything possible in their power to assist in passing such a

Ll,

Resolved further, That we call upon the grain growers to get busy
and lend their assistance by calling upon their representatives in
Congress to support the measure. ,

Be it requested that our State association, the Farmers’ Cooper-
ative Grain and Live Stock State Association, call upon the grain
growers of the State to assist by way of providing the necessary
funds by contribution to send a delegation to Washington to assist in
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 25

securing such legislation, as we believe it will do more to break the
backbone of the grain trust than any one thing that could be done.

A few items brought out by investigation made by Interstate Com-
merce Commission of the grain trade of the United States during
the summer of 1906.

One page 503, Mr. Cowgill, of Omaha Trans-Mississippi Grain
Company, testified that he conferred with his competitors as to the
amount to be paid to the farmers for grain in the territory covered by
his line of elevators.

He also said, where there are other buyers at stations he instructed
his local buyer to pay the same price as the competitors do; also,
where stations had only two buyers he was satisfied with only one-
half of the business.

Mr. Peck, grain commission business, Omaha, testified that they
' would bid up to put farmers’ elevators and independent shippers out
of business, and that all line elevators were in the combination.

On page 582 is a letter to Storekeeper Murray to keep out of busi-
ness or the elevator would put in a store and sell goods at cost, signed,
“Updike Grain Co.”

On page 267 Mr. Radford, chief State grain inspection, testified
that elevators deducted 100 pounds on each car for sweepings;
also that the grain was not weighed until it reached the top of ele-
vators, after all light stuff, etc., has been blown out. Elevators do not
pay for sweepings, etc., but take 100 pounds. The light stuff not paid

or is gathered up and cleaned and is also a source of income to ele-
vator. Also commen or Federal inspection would be a good thing.
Millers prefer wheat before being mixed. Inspect in and out.

On page 280 Mr. Flack, of Peavey Elevator System, testified that
he dictated the price to be paid by 73 different elevators belong-
ing to his company, and that he agreed with competitors as to
what price should be paid at different points; also that if “ Scoop
Shoveler” opened up in his territory he would go at him and drive
him out of business by biding higher, so that he could nct get grain;
also tried to outbid farmers’ elevators to put them out of business;
also that farmers’ elevators caused an increase of prices to farmers;
also that his company received an allowance from the Union Pacific
Railway on every bushel of grain shipped over that road; if he
wanted to ship over some other road, he had to give order to com-
petitor who controlled business on that road. ;

On page 290 Mr. Walton testified that railroads were interested in
line elevators, and independent shippers could not get cars unless the
order was given through the line elevator controlling business on
that road. .

On page 314 Mr. Beall, of the National Elevator Company, testi-
fied that when they went into business the Illinois Central elevators
charged 54 cents a bushel for running through elevator; afterwards
reduced price, but cars always went 1,000 to 3,000 pounds short until
they joined combination, and the combination fixed arbitrarily the
price to be paid the farmer. : a

On page 384 Mr. Taylor testified that where there is no competition
the rate is 2 or 3 cents less per bushel.
26 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

On page 404 Mr. Smiley, secretary Kansas Grain Growers’ Asso-
ciation, testified that the association was formed for the purpose of
bettering the grain trade; that at the terminal markets the weighs
were very unsatisfactory and inspection poor; that organization
had made a big difference; before organizing 2 per cent shortage was
averaged; also that quite often a car of No. 2 wheat was graded No.
4—loss to farmer, and 4 or 5 cents per bushel gone to elevator. Also
farmers object to 100 pounds sweepings taken by elevators.

Mr. Tedford, State grain inspector of Kansas, testified that the

standard of grades going out of elevators was the minimum or lowest

character of grade, while others testified that of the grain as it went
into elevator the lowest grade in the car was the standard.

On pages 788, 789, Mr. Bevan testified as to the custom of “car
plugging,” and gave instances of where from 150 to 200 cars were so
plugged, and described the plugging system, as follows:

Q. What is the practice of plugging cars?
Mr. Bevan answered :

It is putting a poor grade on the bottom and covering it with good stuff, so
the inspector can not get at it. They have what is called “ trier” to push into
the car. If it does not go deep enough he does not know the poor stuff is there.

On page 790 Mr. Forsaith testified to his knowledge of the plug-
ging of wheat going to public elevators, as follows:

They would run up tailings, bin-burned wheat, stumpy wheat—all inferior
grades of wheat they had in the house—in one spot and run contract wheat in
the others. They would get a string of cars in and give me the capacities and
tell me how much to drop, as they call it, of the “dope.” I would drop it, and
when I got that dropped I would drop contract on top of it.

Grain-trade complaints as reported by American consuls, and conse-
quent loss to American producer.

Consul Thomas R. Wallace, in a report from Crefeld, says that
the grain dealers in northern and western Europe have been hold-
ing meetings, the principal purpose of which seems to be to take
united action with regard to a change in the rules and methods
of transacting business with the United States in their line and
to correct abuses now existing in the same. The consul continues:

The grain trade from the United States with this district has been declin-
ing for some time, and if such dissatisfaction becomes general throughout
Europe the losses to the people of America in this important branch of their
export trade will be enormous. To gain some idea of the causes of the com-
plaints regarding the grain exported from the United States I have made
personal inquiry among the millers and dealers in these products, and am
told that the conditions complained of here are the same all over Europe.

The dealers say they have suifered excessive losses through the purchase
of grain from America by its not grading up to the standard given in the
inspector’s certificate in kind, quality, or condition when received. Wheat,
sold as good winter wheat and so certified to by the inspector, is very often
found to be new wheat mixed with old and often wormy wheat. Grain often
arrives in very bad condition. Wheat purchased as new is found weevilly—
very good wheat with badly damaged grain mixed with it. ;

They say, further, that the American shippers well know these facts, but
of late years refuse to take these precautions, and because of the rule that
the inspector's certificate is final the purchaser is compelled to suffer the
loss arising from this negligence of the shipper. If the purchaser presents
a claim for loss caused by grain received in bad condition, or of inferior quality

a that certified to by the inspector, he receives no satisfaction from the
shipper.
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. are

UNITED STATES ALONE TO BLAME,

I am informed that such conditions have become worse; that the purchaser
here does not receive what he buys, and that no reliance can be placed on the
inspector’s certificate. The result is the miller has ceased to buy American
grain for his mill and-the farmer for his stock. It is further said that grain
received from South America, Russia, or Roumania arrives in good condition,
that received from the United States alone being bad.

A general meeting of those engaged in the grain trade was held in 1905 by
representatives from Holland and Germany. A meeting was held in London in
November last, in which appeared representatives from Germany, France,
Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, and England, Ireland, and Scotland, and still
another meeting was held on December 12 at Berlin. At all of these assemblies
the principal topic for discussion was methods to correct the alleged abuses in
the grain trade with the United States.

COERCIVE MEASURES THREATENED.

The dealers having radical or extreme views do not believe that an amicable
settlement of the matter can be made with the shippers unless coercive meas-
ures are used, and this is one of the reasons of the international character of
these assemblies. It is said by them that some of the same conditions prevailed
in the grain trade with Russia some time ago. The Russian dealers were in-
vited to Berlin to a conference, but treated the action with indifference,
whereupon the German dealers refused to buy any Russian grain, and in a
short time Russia asked for a meeting.

The seriousness of this movement, threatening the loss of trade in this im-
portant branch of American exports, should not be underestimated. It is
general in its character and covers the countries buying about all of the surplus
crops of the United States.

The unanimity of sentiment expressed at these meetings indicates there must
be good cause for complaint, and as representatives of nearly all the nations of
Europe are taking part in these assemblies and the meetings have become
international in character, it is time the American people, who are interested
in this great and important branch of the nation’s industries and commerce,
should take some action to preserve it from further losses.

FRANCE.
; FAULTY AMERICAN GRAIN-INSPECTION METHODS.

Consul General Robert P. Skinner, of Marseille, thinks it is highly
desirable that certain facts in regard to American grain-selling
methods be given immediate and wide circulation, and that something
be done either by action of Congress or by the concerted action of
American commercial bodies to return or, rather, standardize the
system under which the great cereal exporting business has been
created. Mr. Skinner writes:

There is little popular knowledge in the United States in regard to the fact
that wheat, corn, grease, and similar products of American origin are not now
sold abroad by sample, but by nominal grade. The European buyer knows
nothing of the merchandise whatever before it reaches his possession. He
imports and resells various classes of merchandise the quality or grade of
which is certified to him, not by the merchant who has sold him the article,
but by the official inspector of a board of trade or other equivalent body at the
port of shipment. He pays for the goods before he receives them, and when
the exporter in the United States delivers to him a certificate of inspection,
declaring the goods to be of a given grade, he has no alternative but to honor
the drafts. The bargain is absolutely final upon the production to him of this
certificate of inspection.

STRENUOUS OBJECTIONS.

Of late years the murmurs against this system have been increasing in
Europe, and whereas a short time ago they took the form of isolated private
28 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

complaints that goods did not always conform to the certified grade, they now
take the form of organized protests. I have before me not merély private
correspondence running through a number of years, but the recent proceedings
of the London Corn Trade Association and the proceedings of a delegate con-
ference held on December 12 at the Berlin bourse, the general tenor of which is
that foreign importers are vexed with prevailing conditions in the United
States and are determined to force an improvement. At these two conferences
a great many harsh things were said in regard to American certificates, and
specific instances of irregularities were mentioned. The vital point, which it
will be well to separate from so much context, is this:

“Mr, Friedberg (Hamburg) stated: It is perfectly clear that if an American
inspector certifies we have no right to doubt, or if we do we are asked ‘Why
do you go on buying?’ I may assure this meeting that a good many of us are
not going on buying. We have none of this trouble in South America. For the
general trade I think that there are respectable people enough in America, and
I am wondering why they do not stop the glaring abuses that are com-
plained of.”

This instability is naturally one of the conditions of American business that
is least acceptable to foreign importers, and, what with rivalry between ports
for export business, it has created not only bitter feeling abroad, but definite
differences in the prices at which grain of the same nominal grade is offered
for sale at the different ports of shipment. There are “easy ports” and “ good
ports,” and sometimes the “easy ports” are penalized as thus explained in a
recent letter from an importer to an officer of an American commercial
organization:

“Ags you know, at present importers have great difficulty selling on certifi-
eates, but where quality is reasonably assured they are willing to pay a
premium over lower inspections. Newport News and Norfolk were excluded on
the London and Liverpool contracts because of last year’s (1905) No. 2 corn
shipments, while, as you know, your inspection maintained a premium all last
season over the Atlantic.”

SIMPLE REMEDY PROPOSED.

The remedy sought is so easy of application and the demand for its applica-
tion is so entirely reasonable that to the importer protracted resistance is
incomprehensible. The proper remedy may be applied either by the American
Government or by the cooperation of American trade bodies. The starting
point of the reform would be, naturally, the establishment of standard descrip-
tions by law. This done, if the Government were charged with. the issuance
of inspection certificates the service would be removed from local influences,
and the so-called official American certificates would be rehabilitated. If this
very rational proposition be objected to, the surest means of effectively com-
bating it would be the holding of a conference of American grain-inspecting
bodies for the adoption of grain standards and for the adoption of ways and
means of drawing standard samples, to be deposited in American consulates
at great European ports, or to be issued upon demand to importers; and to
provide for a board of inspectors, the members thereof to be transferred at
intervals and liberated from every form of local pressure.

Consul-General Skinner, of Marseille, France, under date of Janu-
ary 10, 1907, writes as follows: :

In continuation of my report, dated December 18, 1906, I wish to say that my
attention had been called to a report presented to the Syndical Chamber of
Grain and Flour, at Paris, by George Lefebvre, delegate to the International
Reunion, organized by the London Corn Trade Association. This report has
been sent to me by a prominent Marseille miller, and I take it that it resumes
the sentiments of the trade in this city, which was not acted upon the subject
as yet in an official manner, although at this port the great bulk of American
hard-wheat exportations are received. The report of M. Lefebvre is quite long,
and I translate merely the salient passages as follows:

“T have the honor to render an account of my mission as your representative
at the conference of November 8, organized by the London Corn Trade Asso-
ciation, for the purpose of considering final certificates covering grain exporta-
tions from America. The conference was attended by not less than forty-five
members, whose opinions were unanimous as to the necessity of reforming the
actual system. Some wished to ameliorate it, and others to abolish it. Com-
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 29

plaints were made of a detailed nature, which I have no need here to repeat
except as to two cases, which deserve to be set forth.

“Complaint was made in regard to the delivery of hard winter wheat No. 2
in which not only the old and the new crop were mixed, but in which there was
to be found also a considerable quantity of seriously damaged wheat. From
the American inspectors who delivered the certificates, the only answer received
was this: ‘We consider our principal duty is to secure the consumption of our
crop.

“Corn certified as No. 2 or ‘sail grade’ (the quality capable of supporting a
voyage in sailing ships) and which should have been able to endure a long
voyage, arrived in a completely bad condition after a rather short journey.
The complaint made was met by the reply that: ‘It is the fault of the buyers
who purchase during the months when corn germinates.’

“Mr. Montgomery, of Liverpool, speaking first, declared that the inspection
service was badly established in the United States; that the European buyer
renouncing any right of appeal as to quality when an inspector has delivered
a certificate, thus constitutes the inspector an arbiter between the seller in
America and the receiver in Europe.

“The abuses concerning which complaints arise from all parts of Europe
prove that the buyers must come to an understanding, in order to determine
the methods by which this business should be handled between America and
the Old World. This conference is probably the first effort along these lines
between the interested countries.

First of all, what is it that is called an ‘official’ certificate of inspection
as to quality? This is a very broad definition. There is not in the trade any
definition of the word ‘ official,’ and in consequence every certificate of an in-
spector who holds an official position must be accepted by the buyer.”

CANADA.

The following Associated Press dispatch is corroborated by the
Agricultural Department:

GRASS SEED IS BEING DOPED WITH ADULTERATIONS FROM CANADA.

WASHINGTON, February 13, 1907.—The Department of Agriculture has issued
a circular relative to the investigation of the adulteration of orchard grass, blue-
grass, clover, and alfalfa seed. The Department gathered seed from all parts
of the United States, buying in the open market, and of the seed examined
about one-third was found adulterated. The degrees of adulteration varied
from 10 per cent to 75 per cent. The names of upward of a hundred firms
which the Department alleges are selling adulterated seeds are printed in the
circular. It is estimated that 700,000 pounds of Canadian bluegrass seed are
annually imported into the United States and mixed with Kentucky bluegrass
seed and sold as the latter. A similar amount of trefoil is imported from Eng-
land, mixed with alfalfa seeds, and sold at a corresponding advance, says the
circular.

» SCOTLAND.
AMERICAN FLOUR HURT BY MISBRANDING.

Consul R. W. Austin, of Glasgow, writes that the friends of Ameri-
can flour in Scotland are elated over the passage by Congress of “ the
food and drugs act of June 30, 1906,” and are predicting that with
the enforcement of the law mentioned the American flour will regain
its old-time reputation and be restored to the head of the list which
it occupied in Great Britain prior to 1904. Mr. Austin continues:

At that time no flour—home or foreign—equaled the American article, which
had grown in popular favor to such an extent that it had no real competitor.

The American wheat crop of 1904 being short enabled the continental mills
to introduce their flour into Scotland, many of them not hesitating to use
80 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

popular American labels. This scheme was worked successfully for some
time, to the injury of the American trade and the excellent reputation of its
flour. Finally a vigorous protest under the British “sale of goods act” wag
made, and this practice of the millers of the Continent discontinued. While
this afforded relief, American flour is, and has been for several years, seriously
injured in Great Britain by its being misbranded or labeled before leaving
America, and this unfair method, it is hoped, will be discontinued by an ob-
servance of the “food and drug act.”

A few expressions of individuals concerning the proposed legislation
for national inspection of grain. .

Hon. E. Y. Sarles, governor of North Dakota, in letter of date
December 21, 1903, says:

I received yours inclosing copy of 8. 199, and most heartily indorse the pro-
visions contained therein. That a bill to provide for fixing uniform standard of
classification and grading of wheat is urgently needed is a fact that the pro-
ducers of the Northwest, especially, feel is most essential. I could put you in
possession of facts that would show the present system, especially that under
the Minnesota inspection, as being extremely faulty, iniquitous, and detrimental
to the producer, as well as to the foreign and eastern buyers. Evidence sup-
porting my statement can be had from most any of the grain commission men
of Minneapolis and Duluth, and not a few of the elevator general managers
(those not directly interested). The minority report of George M. Young, of
Valley City, made to our last legislature, shows conclusively many deficiencies
in the Minnesota inspection.

I have no suggestions to make as to any amendments in your bill, and hope
Congress will favor its passage. I think most any one of the commission men,
as I have said, in Minneapolis and Duluth, would support your bill, and so
would any fair-minded person who is not directly interested in the results of
the present system of grain inspection. I personally know the names of general
managers of line elevator companies who have claimed to me that the present
system is vicious, but do not know if they would dare to permit their names
being used, as they might lose their positions by doing so.

Mr. I. H. Harris, grain dealer of Bathgate, N. Dak., under date of
April 18, 1904, says:

I have taken a great deal of interest in your noble fight with what might be
called the great wheat trust. * * * Your national will be a great benefit.
Se el have been buying and shipping wheat for sixteen years, and know
that the Minnesota inspection is rank. They are holding us up here in
North Dakota for a million dollars each year. I can give a good many
instances of their robbery to substantiate what I say. * * * I have talked
with a great many private buyers and shippers of grain from North Dakota,
and with any amount of wheat raisers and farmers, and I have never yet found
one that was satisfied with the present inspection.

Mr. B. R. Beall, of the National Grain and Elevator Company, of
Kansas City, Mo., writes under date of J anuary 28, 1907:

I believe I speak the sentiment of the grain growers of this territory when I
Say it will be a godsend to them if your bill for national inspection of grain

is passed.
On J pea: 20, 1906, Mr. J. D. Shanahan, chief inspector uf the
Chamber of Commerce of Buffalo, N. Y., writes: ,

I have for some years been an advocate of Government standards for grain.
Mr. John O. Foering, president of the Chief Grain Inspectors’
National Association, under date of J anuary 20, 1906, writes:

_ I note fully your views regarding the great necessity for greater uniformity
in the proper classification of grain, and have personally labored for several
years to accomplish something toward that end.
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION, 31

Mr. George F. Reed, exporter of grain of Boston, Mass., writes
under date April 21, 1904:

I have read your speech with great interest, and assure you again of my
sympathy and interest in your efforts.

Mr. J. M. McCardle, grain dealer of Indianapolis, Ind., writes:

I have some information that is very important on this subject, not only
important but startling, and it only proves one thing, and that is, that the
inspection of grain should be inspected by the Government.

Hon. H. M. Creel, of Devils Lake, N. Dak., writes as follows:

I am urging this matter everywhere I go, and have a history of three cars
of wheat thrashed the same time off the same piece of ground, all ‘the same
exactly: One graded No. 1 northern, the next ten days later graded rejected,
the next No. 4. I reshipped it to Duluth, and got No. 1 northern and 3-pound
dockage. We are robbed annually in this State of millions of dollars. I have
the history of these three cars, shipped the same day, arriving at intervals, also
samples and returns to prove the whole thing.

Mr. 8. M. Edwards, a large grain raiser of Argusville, N. Dak.,
under date of December 4, 1905, writes:

That national grain inspection will surely be of great value to the North
Dakota farmer, and what benefits the farmer benefits all other classes to a
marked degree.

Hon. S. L. Dahl, a prominent business man and farmer of McVille,
N. Dak., under date December 28, 1904, writes:

Your grain-inspection bill is something that North Dakota wants. I have
not heard of a single person who did not favor your bill. It was the same in
the North Dakota legislature two years ago. All were in favor of it.

Hon. J. L. Cashel, of the First National Bank of Grafton, N. Dak.,
and who is also interested largely in raising grain, writes under date
of December 26, 1904:

I am very much pleased with the bill. The principie is right. I think a
memorial through our legislature would strengthen your position and I am
willing to render what assistance I can.

Mr. George D. Palmer, of Bordulac, N. Dak., superintendent of the
Livingstone farms, with 10,000 acres under cultivation, writes:

I have no doubt but a bill of that kind would be of great benefit to the farm-
ers, and I shall be pleased to do anything I can to help the matter along.

Hon. J. H. McLain, merchant of Inkster, N. Dak., writes under
date December 20, 1904:

I have read with interest your bill and remarks and congratulate you on the
efforts you have put forth to obtain relief from what is now one of the most
gigantic systems of legalized robbery that exists. I also commend you for the

manner in which you have defended not only the interests of the farmer, but
the business man as well.

Hon. N. Robillard, of Olga, N. Dak., writes:

In reference to your grain grading and inspection bill will say it has been
talked around here for a long time, and we think the bill will be a godsend if
it ever passes.

Hon. George A. McCrea, of the First National Bank of Drayton,
N. Dak., writes:
I am heartily in sympathy with your efforts in trying to secure national in-

spection of grains, and believe that your 8. 199 will prove the remedy for a
great deal of our trouble in securing proper grades.
82 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

Mr. W. D. Sweet, wholesale merchant of Fargo, N. Dak., writes:

After following your argument, I find no opening for any suggestions. The
principle of grain inspection is as true as that which relates to weights and
measures, and the interstate nature of the subject makes it as much a matter
of Federal regulation as any kind of interstate commerce. If my services can
be used in any way to further the matter, I will be glad to be called upon.

Mr. G. A. White, of the Portland State Bank, of Portland, N.
Dak., writes:

I am well aware of the evils of our present system of grain grading and
weighing, and your biJl seems well adapted to cure those evils so far as they
are curable by Federal legislation. It must be remembered, however, that
officials, whether State or Federal, are human, and the great elevator com-
panies would probably find a way of appealing to their cupidity.

Mr. D. E. Morden writes from Wahpeton, N. Dak.:

Please allow me to congratulate you on the noble stand you have taken in
behalf of the farmers and grain growers of the country. I have been one of
them for over twenty years and can say to my sorrow that I know your asser-
tions made in the Senate are as nearly correct as they possibly could be. We
have known for vears that we were not getting justice either in weights or
grades when we shipped our wheat to Duluth, Minneapolis, or Superior, conse-
quently we have been compelled to sell our grain at home to the company ele-
vators for any price they saw fit to give us. Yet while we were aware that we
were at the mercy of a gang of speculators we were unable to find a remedy.
This, I believe, is one of the direct causes of the discontent shown among the
farmers, and which I believe has won the sympathy of our farmers with the
laboring men against capital. Now, it is not necessary to go into detail in this
matter, but I feel that it should be a pleasure and a duty of every farmer in
the country to thank you personally for the good work you have taken up.

Mr. R. S. Lewis, president of the Red River National Bank, of
Fargo, N. Dak., writes:

T want to congratulate you upon the bill you are working to get through with
reference to securing a national system for the grading of wheat. I regard it
as one of the most important measures that affect the agricultural interests of
the Northwest. Under the present system the farmers are being robbed every
year of at least one grade on their wheat.and in this way: In the fal] of the
year when they have to market their grain the inspection at Minneapolis and
Duluth is very rigid, and for the last two years it has been almost impossible to
secure a better grade than No. 2 or No. 8 northern, and usually at a pretty
heavy dockage. Now, were it not for the fact that as soon as the grain is out
of the farmer’s hands this damnable inspection loosens up on the grades and the
elevator people who have graded the grain No. 2 and No. 8 northern are allowed
to deliver this wheat for No. 1 northern on contract sales. I suppose this is all
clear to you and no doubt prompted the drawing of your bill, which I trust you
will be able to get through.

Mr. D. M. Case, of Baraboo, Wis., writes as follows:

Attached hereto you will please find a paper clipping taken from the Mil-
waukee Free Press of Sunday, April 10. I understand from this clipping that
you have taken up the issue that the farming communities of our Northwestern
States are not receiving their just dues as to the inspection and weighing of
grains at the terminal elevators. If I am correct in my supposition, perhaps I
might be of some service to you in the matter, for I kept the grain books for
The Lake Superior Elevator Company and know whereof I speak when I say
that I know they have not, at least in the past. This very point has been a

matter of great interest to me, and I would be pleased to read the full text
of your speech on this question.

Mr. Julius H. Barnes, president of the Duluth Board of Trade, in
an Interview in the Fargo, N. Dak., Forum of January 17, 1907, said:

The impression seems to have gone abroad in North Dakota that the Duluth
grain men are opposed to a system of Federal inspection of grain. That is
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 33

wrong. The Duluth grain men stand ready and willing to do business on any
system of inspection that is stable and secures the confidence of eastern and for-
eign buyers. It is a significant fact that at a large meeting of the importers
of the Continent of Europe and the United Kingdom held in London about two
months ago every system of inspection in America was attacked save two.
Those were the inspections of Duluth and Manitoba.

The following obtained from the best authority obtainable will
assist in showing the working systems of inspection in the greater
grain markets, amount handled, force used, and cost:

MISSOURI.

Inspection in Missouri is governed by the State railroad and ware-
house commission. Inspection and weighing is given at three
places—St. Louis, Kansas City, and St. Joseph. About fifty men are
employed at the three places. Inspection fees are 65 cents per car at
Kansas City and 50 cents per car at the other places. Employees
receive about $100 per month. Grain inspected on arrival in 1904
was:

 

 

 

 

 

Cars.

St LOuls 2. See eh ee i ee Se 34, 019
Kansas: Cit y-s222 oe 2a oe te at a 27, 203
St. Joseph Dt oa as eet ae ee 8, 851
Total 64, 573

In addition, 332,627 bushels, or 333 cars, in sacks, were inspected.
The inspection fees for the year 1904 were________-____-_-_____-___ $50, 211. 00
Expenses for the year were__ 47, 990. 69

 

During the same period there was inspected or shipped out as fol-
lows:

 

 

Bushels.
St. Louis 2a . 9,599, 540
Kansas City eo tee eee eel 8, 851, 810
Total 18, 851, 810

 

or 18,451 cars. The same fees are charged on out inspection as on
in.”
(From State reports for 1904.)

LOUISIANA.

Louisiana has no State inspection. The only place in the State
where inspection is given is at New Orleans, and there inspection is
under the control of the New Orleans Board of Trade. The follow-
ing force is employed:

 

 

 

Per month.
1 chief inspector at ue $333. 00
5 inspectors at______.--__--_--- Ss -each__ 150.00
5 assistants at Ls do_.___ 75.00
Clerical force Soe ates us 200. 00

 

Rates for inspection are 50 cents per car.

In the year 1904 there was inspected “in” 12,196,487 bushels of
grain, besides 562,143 barrels of flour, equal to 2,539,643 bushels, and
about 1,216,999 sacks of rice. The figures on rice are only for five
months.
84 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

During the same month there was shipped:

loi so es poe de eae bushels__ 7, 469, 402
PUAN UAT neta a 1 ch aah ata LA intel barrels__ 687, 019
TGC es 2 5D Ee ee PRA oO AN aa at tN eset oe dg ae ad Std sacks__ 1, 297, 157

(From report of chief inspector and Bureau of Statistics.)
WASHINGTON. st

Washington has State inspection provided for by law. There are
three points in the State where inspection is given, viz, Seattle,
Spokane, and Tacoma.

At Seattle two men are employed all the time and from three to
seven during the busy part of the year. .

Spokane being a strictly local market, only one man is employed
there.

Tacoma, three men and a clerk are employed all the time, and in
busy seasons ten or twelve men are employed.

Wages paid are about $100 per month for inspectors and $85 for
deputies.

During the year from September 1, 1902, to September 1, 1903,
the amount of grain inspected was as follows:

 

 

 

SECC OMIA BL 3a bse oN ENE es I AR eo ee cars__ 12, 050
Seattlen= icf oa ee oe a ee eee oe do____ 5, 501
SPOKANG..2 20220 ose c ese es Se eee ee do___- 1, 377

PUNO te eae rate tn ee teh 2 OS 18, 928
Receipts for fees, etc., for the year were._________-___-__-_ $14, 325. 60
Expenses during same period were_______.____________-___ 14, 775. 15

All grain going through these markets is in sacks, and hence the
fees are higher than at other places. Cost of inspection is 75 cents
per car.

MINNESOTA.

Minnesota has State inspection, in charge of chief grain inspector,
who is appointed by the governor. There are five places in the State
where State inspection is given, viz, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Duluth,
St. Cloud, and New Prague.

About 125 persons are employed in the weighing and inspecting
departments during the busy season; of these about 75 are in the
weighing department and 50 act as inspectors. Salaries paid range

from $50 per month for clerical service to $125 per month for
inspectors. :

The expense of the department for 1908 was________.._...___ $236, 355. 90
Receipts for weighing and inspecting, 1908__..... 261, 381. 13
Excess of receipts over expenses____.___ i 25, 025. 23

Carloads.

Inspected) i235 6 eee ota Boe sl he Sn ooo, be 218, 216
Inspected! OU be acca see ee 58, 228
Also inspected out 58,202,807 bushels or__....__......... 58, 208
I ee re EI ne orgs anh 380, 247

The last item of 58,203 cars was grain inspected into boats.
(From State reports and grain inspectors’ report.)
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 85

CALIFORNIA.

California has no State inspection, but the San Francisco Board of
Trade or “ Merchants’ Exchange” appoints an inspector who makes
inspection and issues certificate on request. The chief inspector and
one deputy are employed all the time at San Francisco, and one dep-
uty is stationed at Porto Costa. During the busy months several
extra men are put on at a salary of from $3.50 to $4.50 per day. The
inspector and deputies get about $100 per month each. The grain is
all sacked when inspected. About 30,000,000 bushels of grain are
received and shipped from San Francisco.

(Bureau of Statistics.)

ILLINOIS.

Illinois has State inspection under control of railroad and ware-
house commission. The principal point of inspection is Chicago.

About sixty persons are employed in the inspection department,
at an average wage of about $140 per month each.

Have no official figures of State inspection other than report of
inspector, who states that the fees for the past year were $134,149,
and the expenses were $113,491.

Report of Bureau of Statistics shows that there is received at
Chicago 285,905,000 bushels, or 285,905 cars of grain, and there are
shipped 152,960,000 bushels, or 152,960 cars, making a total of cars
to be inspected 438,864.

WISCONSIN.

Wisconsin now has State inspection at Milwaukee and West Supe-
rior. The chief inspector is appointed by the governor, who also ap-
points a man from North Dakota and New York. This board was
created by a law enacted in 1905, and we have no figures from the
work.

Prior to the passage of this law the inspection was done by a man
appointed by the board of trade of Milwaukee. He received 25 cents
per car and hired his own deputies, paying them about $100 each per
month.

MASSACHUSETTS.

The only inspection made in Massachusetts is at Boston and is
under control of the Boston Chamber of Commerce, which hires a.
chief inspector at a salary of $3,000 per annum. He hires deputies
and assistants as needed at salaries ranging from $800 to $1,300 per
annum. <A force of from seven to nine men are employed. The grain
received and shipped during the year 1904 was—

 

Bushels.
Received_______-__------------ fe tert lee See te en en eee be 16, 226, 513
Shipped__ = ss ws Beate -- 7, 290, 789
Ota 22.2 oe ee sooo ee ‘_ 28, 517, 8302

 

PENNSYLVANIA.

The only point of inspection in Pennsylvania is at Philadelphia.
At that port in 1904 the amount of grain received and shipped was—

Bushels.
Ved Samra ssa sea oe ee 14, 811, 731
tae Sa ay aa ee 6, 401, 099

 

Total so- sesso ssc enasesesecsse acs an tess ees ae seat 21, 212, 830
36 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

MARYLAND.

Baltimore is the only port at which inspection is made. Have no
data.

NEW YORK.

Inspection is given at Buffalo and New York. In both places the
inspectors are appointed by the boards of trade or chambers of com-
merce. In 1904 New York received 61,116,275 bushels of grain.
Have no other data.

MAINE,

Portland, Me., is the only port in the State at which inspectors
might possibly be required. The Bureau of Statistics report the
following amount of grain received and shipped from that port:

~ Bushels,
TROCO LN OC aor a ae eerie pero nett ate a 5, 835, 769
MSEC os a PN ae a eo ne al Ee eS 5, 783, 743
MOtHlie2s cocaine ee See ee ee eee aS eee eee 11, 119, 512

From the foregoing incomplete returns it will be seen that 1,027,000
cars of grain were inspected last year; complete reports would bring
the amount above 1,500,000 cars of grain inspected annually at the
above-mentioned ports. If an inspection fee of 50 cents per car were
charged it would produce $750,000 per year, which, according to esti-
mates of the Agricultural Department, allowing inspection at fifty
cities in the United States, would be $30,000 more than enough to
roaintain the service.

The amount of grain and flour and meal exported from the United
States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, is shown by the
following table prepared by the Bureau of Statistics:

Lueports of domestic grain and flour, from leading and all other customs dis-
tricts of the United States, during the year ending June 30, 1907.

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
  
  
 
    
    
 
  
  
 

 

   
 
 
  

Breadstuffs.
Customs districts from Barley. Buckwheat. Corn
which exported. ,
Bushels Bushels Bushels
(48 Ibs.). Dollars. (48 Ibs.). Dollars. (56 Ibs.). Dollars.
BaltiMor Goccsecne. ceeicce mee 3 355 2,353 |..-.......2.1. 7,037
Boston and Charlestown... 232,911 119,018 [220222 Bas? 908 2 70780
Ree re rea nesonnnnss hone 860, 43"|°""460;088' | --"ear3ai | as tie tae
Norfolk and Portsmouth... _- : : = rsa i 194 ORF MG io, 333
Enlibact ht atceennemanceyn cae 6,368,221 | 3, 257, 590
Galveston - 149, 732 83, 849
Mobile 5, 693, 302 2, 846, 842
New Orlean ee on
ae 8, 236, 918 | 4, 163, 295
tenes 4 h:
Puget Sound. -o3s Ll? 1, 766 Tae 44°996
Chien. = ae i ie 342 | 3,695,325 6, 723 5, 596

 

5,042,748 | 2,689,127
3,907,730 | 2,027, 065
30 180

 

 
  

 

oe ls 7 clilestae een 0
ieeenen ea a 1,800 90 1,615, 000 790, 110
Buperion 00000 00000000000 248,812 | 121,009 407 674 177, 218
OER caaivs cemmtat renin 282,858 | 2067335 9087 758 495, 418
Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

aces sodden eneenee 8,238, 842 | 4,556, 205 190, 429 | 128, 837 | 83,300,708 | 44, 261,816

 
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

Exports of domestic grain and flour, ete—Continued.

37

 

 

 

      
 

    
 
 
  
  
 

 
    

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  
 
  

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breadstuffs.
‘Customs cea irons which Corn meal. Oats. Oatmeal.
Bushels Barrels
(32 Ihs.), | Dollars. (196 Ibs.). | Dollars. | Pounds. | Dollars.

MSINO cur aremneerverdiwnca a 206, 157 605, 931
Posted anes ped . et a, 320 126,996 | 9,456,051 283, 232
. a , 37,996 | 329, 620 7, 879
ew pe News efeear saa ib 624 Boa 528) 500 212, 150
Norfolk and Portsmouth, 7 | 001,828 | 1,061,216] le, 348
Philadelphia............. :
Portland and Falmouth...
Daly 086 0teccuscecnwe cence
MODE cies tieeinnnsinennes
New Orleans.
Sabine....
Puget Sound....-.............
San Francisco............
Chicago... <0 scesssone eae
Detroit. cece ssccescceeecen
Date sass pasiscaiay miwdawes
UPON 2... scacecnraydacnminetr
SUPOT OR esc: cyecrciss sisteteei cove cpavatsis
AW Oth OP ese ctsisicisroeisretatraiiuies x 120, 604

Totalows ces sdeee ne cscs 766,880 | 2,313,410 | 4,014,042 | 1,670,881 | 42,701, 257 1,122, 162

Breadstuffs.
Customs districts from Rye. Rye flour. Wheat. Wheat flour.
which exported.
Bushels | Dol- | Barrels | Dol- | Bushels Barrels
(56 Ibs.).| lars. \(i96lbs.).| lars. | (60 Ibs.).| P!Ars- \¢796 ts.).| Dollars.
Baltimore..............-. 42, 803 5,026, 578) 3,825, 501] 1,731,923] 7,684, 074
Boston and Charlestown.|.......... 2, 622, 503) 2,166,985} 894, 286) 3,960,370
Newport News.......-... 13,842; 2,99 943, 359 , 506) 819, 184] 3, 238, 559
New York’... 2.2scccte en 601, 575) 460, 628) 1,377} 4, 569/18, 679, 225/15, 378, 025] 2, 995, 758/13, 004, 637
Norfolk ag Portsmouth is stnawienees |oecers sell mein ers erates femelle vores sine eieiereearwele 310, 352} 1,741, 619
Philadelphia............. .-| 8,391, 450| 6,877, 546] 2,174, 850) 8, 571, 746
Portlan | 1) 189; 815] 1,048,078] ” 53,775) "251,558
Galveston..........----.- . 14, 172) 021/10, 904,415) 361, 820) 1,364,440
Mobile... ; 862 720| 381,571) 1,417, 261
New Orleans -| 5, sae a 4, Te a 618, 069} 2, 543, 564
SA DIN Cis ccssarcje ctars-cseiate eos whe ai csermagiaceiia|wereietesioc'| earewdorecizers [a - sexe ce Oaeieca een ee
Puget Sound.... 6, 012) 732 4, 291} 528 3, , 614 10, 669, 015
SAN: PrAanCise ai. o.o:s ose nines niesies HSE lewdeEle 13, 309, 914 * 393? 220 1 561, 563
Willamette.-.. .-| 7,198, 844) 5, 195, 535} 1, 239, 704 4 573, 359
Dente Seas 34, 950 | ee ae nee 2 36
etroit... spdtuomiantiahe balsa aepelpesea ge aioeacecentaias l igha Sours

Duluth.......... 50,000 33,736 1, 940, 582) 1, 584, 310 1s, 700 anat
Aurones eicesssccsesegemsleevese awe: lacie cere nawicwsiera| saaeamcialpsa emacs |Seemereses
Superior. ......- 5,837| 4,086 "227277)"1) 679; 625) 17282/027} 125,504) 518,377
All other.......-.-..----- 410 244 1,847) 5, 604 7 741) 374) 1, 487, 269 93, 284 333, 693

TP Obaleprate seeietoa 749, 455] 562,016, 3, 377] 10, 879,76, 569, 423|60, 214, 388]15, 584, 667|62, 175, 397

RECAPITULATION.
Grain. Value. ne Value
eee i258 0 Barrels.
Meugmbdemoeee maeiS 8, 23

Bis Laotian sete imine : "109, 429 ” 108) 837

 

 

Buckwheat.
Cc

Corn meal (196 pounce)
Oatmeal (100 pounds). .
Rye flour (196 pounds). -
Wheat flour (196 pounds).

 
 

44,261,816 |.

  
  
 

 

 

 

766,880 | $2, 213, 440

427, 012 1) 129) 162

3,337 10,879

15,584,667 | 62,175,397

173,071,901 | 111,394,233 | 16,771,896 | 65, 521, 878

 

 

 

 
88 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

Tnspection would probably be needed at the following grain mar-
kets in the United States: St. Louis, Kansas City, St. Joseph, New
Orleans, Seattle, Tacoma, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Duluth, San Fran-
eiseo, Chicago, Milwaukee, West Superior, Boston, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, New York, Buffalo, Cincinnati, and Cleveland.

To have a competent corps of inspectors at each market would re-
quire a force of from 200 to 400 persons, including laborers and cler-
ical assistants. These would require salaries ranging from $500 to
$3,500 per annum. At an average of $1,200 per year per employee,
the service would cost from $250,000 to $450,000. The present charge
for inspection is from 50 to 75 cents per car, or thousand tneshiale
About 1,500.000 cars are inspected annually, and if the present mini-
mum fee were charged the receipts would be in the neighborhood of
$750,000 a year. It can be readily seen, therefore, that the system if
established would be self-supporting.

Experiments carried on by the Department of Agriculture with
corn show that by a chemical process grading can be made absolutely
the same at any place. The general rules of nearly all markets pro-
vide that in the grading of flaxseed the grading shall be carefully
done according to rule. Several samples are taken from different
parts of a car, all mixed together, sifted. and cleaned. and the result
is generally satisfactory. This is made necessary largely because of
the demand of the purchasers of flaxseed to know the quality of the
grain before purchasing.

If the grain, when it becomes an article of interstate commerce, is
graded by the Department, the grading would be the same in all parts
of the United States, and Geltfornia No. 1 milling would be graded
the same in San Francisco as in New York. The certificate of grad-
ing given on loading would indicate the exact character of the grain.
and these certificates would have the confidence of both foreign and
domestic buyers.

The various boards of trade inspectors and the State inspection
boards have adopted rules for the grading and inspection of grain.
These rules to a great extent are practically the same. Following are
the Minnesota grades as adopted by the Minnesota board of grain
appeals, which could be used by the Department of Agriculture with-
out any great modification if the inspection were to be made under
the supervision of that Department.

MINNESOTA GRADES,

No. 1 hard spring wheat. No, 1 hard spring wheat must be sound, bright and
well cleaned, and must be composed mostly of Hard Seotch Fife and weigh not
less than 58 pounds to the measured bushel.

No. 1 northern spring wheat—No 1 northern spring wheat must be sound and
well cleaned ; it may be composed of the hard and soft varieties of spring wheat,
but must contain a larger proportion of the hard varieties and weigh not less
than 57 pounds to the measured bushel.

No. 2 northern spring wheat—No, 2 northern spring wheat must be sound and
reasonably clean. This grade to include all wheat not suitable for the higher
grades on account of smut, barley, or too much king heads, cockle, and oats, or
any other defects, and to weigh not less thin 56 pounds to the measured bushel.

No. 3 spring iwheat—No, 8 spring wheat shall comprise all inferior, shrunken
spring wheat, weighing not less than 54 pounds to the measured bushel.

Nore.—Hurd, flinty wheat, of good color, containing no appreciable admix-
ture of soft wheat, may be admitted into the grade of No. 2 northern spring and
No. 3 spring wheat, provided the test weight of the same is not more than 1
pound less than the minimum test weight required by the existing rules for
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 39

said grades ; and provided further that such wheat is in all other respects quali-
aa for a into such grades.

ejected spring wheat.—Rejected spring wheat shal inclu 1 ring wheat
grown badly bleached or for any other a unfit nee A hed oe

Notge.—Wheat containing admixture of “ rice” or “ goose” wheat will in no
case grade better than rejected.

No-grade wheat.—All spring wheat that is in a heating condition, too musty,
or too damp to be safe for warehousing, or that is badly bin burnt, badly dam-
aged, exceedingly dirty, or otherwise unfit for storage shall be classed as no
grade, with inspector’s notation as to quality and condition.

Nots.—-The amount of dirt in all wheat shall be determined by the inspectors.

WESTERN WHITE AND RED WHEAT.

No. 1 western white.—No. 1 western white shall be sound, well cleaned, plump,
and composed of the western varieties of white wheat.

No. 2 western white——No. 2 western white shall be sound, reasonably clean,
and composed of western varieties of white wheat.

No. 3 western white——No. 3 western white shall compose all western white
wheat fit for warehousing, weighing not less than 54 pounds to the measured
bushel and not sound enough or otherwise unfit for the higher grades.

Rejected western white.—Rejected western white shall comprise all western
white wheat fit for warehousing but unfit for higher grades.

Nore.—Western red.wheat shall correspond in all respects with the grades
epee - 2, 8, and rejected western white wheat, and shall be called western
red wheat.

WINTER WHEAT.

No. 1 white winter—No. 1 white winter shall be sound, well cleaned, reason-
ably plump, and composed of the white varieties.

No. 2 white winter—No. 2 white winter to be sound, reasonably clean, and
composed of the white varieties.

No. 1 red winter——No. 1 red winter to be sound, well cleaned, reasonably
plump, and composed of the red varieties.

No. 2 red winter.—No. 2 red winter to be sound, reasonably cleaned, and com-
posed of the red varieties.

No. 1 winter—No. 1 winter to be sound and well cleaned, reasonably plump,
and composed of the mixed white and red winter.

No. 2 winter—No. 2 winter to be sound, reasonably clean, and composed of
the mixed white and red winter.

No. 3 winter.—No. 3 winter shall comprise all winter wheat fit for warehous-
ing, weighing not less than 54 pounds to the measured bushel, not sound enough
or otherwise unfit for No. 2 of the other grades. :

Rejected winter.—Rejected winter fit for warehousing but otherwise unfit for
No. 3.

MACARONI WHEAT.

No. 1 macaroni.—No 1 macaroni shall be bright, sound, and well cleaned,

and be composed of rice or goose wheat. .
No. 2 macaroni.—No. 2 macaroni shall include wheat that is bleached and

shrunken. ;
Rejected macaroni—Shall include all wheat badly bleached or smutty or for

any other cause unfit for No. 2.
MIXED WHEAT.

In case of admixture of winter or western white and red wheat with Minne-
sota grades of northern spring wheat, or with each other, it shall be graded
according to the quality thereof and classed as Nos. 1, 2, and 3, ete, mixed
wheat, with inspector’s notation describing its character.

NO-GRADE WHEAT.

-grade wheat.—All western, winter, and mixed wheat that is in a heating
donen too musty, or too damp to be safe for warehousing, or that is badly
bin-burnt, badly damaged, exceedingly dirty, or otherwise unfit for store shall
be classed no-grade, with inspector’s notation as to quality and condition.
40 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

CORN.

No. 1 yellow corn—No. 1 yellow corn shall be sound, yellow, dry, plump, and
well cleaned.

No. 2 yellow corn.—No. 2 yellow corn shall be three-fourths yellow, dry, reas-
onably clean, but not plump enough for No. 1.

No. 3 yellow corn.—No. 3 yellow corn shall be three-fourths yellow, reason-
ably dry, reasonably clean, but not sufficiently sound for No. 2.

No. 1 white corn.—No. 1 white corn shall be sound, dry, plump, and well
cleaned.

No. 2 white corn.—No. 2 white corn shall be seven-eighths white, dry, and
reasonably clean, but not plump enough for No. 1.

No. 3 white corn.—No. 8 white corn shall be seven-eighths white, reasonably
dry, and reasonably clean, but not sufficiently sound for No. 2.

No. 1 corn.—No. 1 corn shall be mixed corn of choice quality, sound, dry, and
well cleaned.

No. 2 corn.—No. 2 corn shall be mixed corn, dry, reasonably clean, but not
good enough for No. 1.

No. 3 corn.—No. 8 corn shall be mixed corn, reasonably dry, and reasonably
clean, but not sufficiently sound for No. 2.

No. 4 corn.—No. 4 corn shall include all corn not wet and not in heating
condition that is unfit for grade No. 3.

No-grade corn.—All corn that is in a heating condition, too musty or too damp
to be safe for warehousing, or that is badly damaged, exceedingly dirty, shall
be classed as no-grade.

OATS.

No. 1 white outs.—No. 1 white oats shall be white, sound, clean, and free from
other grain.

No. 2 white oats.—No. 2 white oats shall be seven-eighths white, sweet, rea-
sonably clean, and reasonably free from other grain.

No. 8 white oats.—No. 3 white oats shall be seven-eighths white, but not
sufficiently sound and clean for No. 2.

No. 4 white oats.—No. 4 white oats shall be seven-eighths white but not suffi-
ciently sound and clean for No. 3.

No. 1 oats.—No. 1 oats shall be mixed oats, sound, clean, and reasonably free
from other grain.

No. 2 oats—No. 2 oats shall be sweet, reasonably clean, and reasonably free
from other grain.

No. 3 oats.—No. 3 oats shall be all oats that are merchantable and warehous-
able, reasonably clean, not fit for higher grades.

No-grade oats—All oats that are in a heating condition, too musty, or too
damp to be safe for warehousing, or that are badly damaged, exceedingly dirty,
shall be classed as no-grade.

RYE.

No. 1 rye.—No. 1 rye shall be sound, plump, and well cleaned.

No. 2 rye.—No. 2 rye shall be sound, reasonably clean, and reasonably free
from other grain.

No. 3 rye—All rye slightly damaged, slightly musty, or from any other cause
unfit for No. 2, shall be graded as No. 3.

No-grade rye.—All rye that is in a heating condition, too musty or too damp
to be safe for warehousing, or that is badly damaged, exceedingly dirty, shall be
classed as no-grade.

BARLEY.

No. 1 barley.—No. 1 barley shall be plump, bright, clean, and free from other
grain.

No. 2 barley.—No. 2 barley shall be sound, of healthy color, not plump enough
for No. 1, reasonably clean, and reasonably free from other grain.

No. 3 barley.—No. 3 barley shall include all slightly shrunken and otherwise
slightly damaged barley, not good enough for No. 2.

No. 4. barley.—No. 4 barley shall include all barley fit for malting purposes,
not good enough for No. 3.

No. 5 barley.—No. 5 barley shall include all barley which is badly damaged or
for any cause unfit for malting purposes, except that barley which has been
chemically treated shall not be graded at all.
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. Al

Chevalier barley.—Nos. 1, 2, and 8 chevalier barley shall conform in all re-
spects to the grades of Nos. 1, 2, and 8 barley, except that they shall be of a
chevalier variety, grown in Montana, Oregon, and on the Pacific coast.

No-grade barley —All barley that is in a heating condition, too musty or too

damp to be safe for warehousing, or that is badly damaged, exceedingly dirty,
shall be classed as no-grade barley. e on aly v

FLAXSEED.

nee iia inspected shall be classed according to quality and conditions, as
WSs:

No. 1 northwestern flaxseed.—Flaxseed to grade No. 1 northwestern shall be
mature, sound, dry and sweet. It shall be northern grown. The maximum
quantity of field, stack, storage, or other damaged seed intermixed shall not
exceed 12% per cent. The minimum weight shall be 51 pounds to the measured
bushel of commercially pure seed.

No. 1 flaxseed.—-No. 1 flaxseed shall be northern grown, sound, dry, and free
from mustiness, and carrying not more than 25 per cent of immature or field,
stack, storage, or other damaged flaxseed, and weighing not less than 50 pounds
to the measured bushel of commercially pure seed.

Rejected flawseed—_Flaxseed that is bin-burnt, immature, field damaged, or
musty, and yet not to a degree to be unfit for storage, and having a test weight
of not less than 47 pounds to the measured bushel of commercially pure seed,
shall be rejected.

No-grade flaxseed.—Flaxseed that is damp, warm, moldy, very musty, or
otherwise unfit for storage, or having a weight of less than 47 pounds to the
measured bushel of commercially pure seed, shall be no-grade.

Note.—No grain shall in any case be graded above that of the poorest quality
found in that lot when it bears evidence of being plugged or doctored.

The following are abbreviations to be used by inspectors in designating the
grades: i
H., hard; O., northern; Wn. W., western white; Wn. R., western red; W.,
winter; W. Wt., white winter; R. Wt., red winter; Mx., mixed; Y. Corn, yellow

corn; W. Corn, white corn; Rj., rejected; N. G., no grades; Mac., macaroni.

Statement made by Senator McCumber before the Convmittee on
Agriculture and Forestry January 25, 1906.

GOVERNMENT GRAIN INSPECTION AND GRADING.
INJUSTICE OF PRESENT SYSTEM.

1. Grades and inspections are made by inspectors who owe their
positions to the influence of the large elevator companies and their
allegiance to the parties responsible for their appointments.

2. The chief inspector appoints all deputy inspectors. If an ap-
peal is taken from the act of the deputy for improper. grading or for
‘any other cause, such appeal is decided by the chief inspector. The
chief inspector, who is responsible for the efficiency of his deputy,
can not very often overrule him without subjecting himself to criti-
cism for his deputies. : ;

3. The great terminal elevator companies have lines of elevators
along every railroad through the States. They arbitrarily instruct
their buyers to what grade the grain is entitled to. They, of course,

lveg against possibility of loss.
Oe maha the crop begins to move the graders at the

i dopted a rule that all questions of doubt shall be
Care ainet the prod Cate The result of that is that about two-
thirds of the crop of the farmer has been purchased at a grade lower
42 GRALN GRADING AND INSPECTION.

than that to which it is entitled. As the season advances the grade
is raised. This, of course, raises all of the grades in store and held
by the elevators and which were purchased at a lower grade. All
questions of doubt in grading are resolved against the producer.

5. The report of the State grain and warehouse commission of
Minnesota, for instance, every year shows that the number of bush-
els of the higher grades taken in is only a small percentage of
the higher grades shipped out from the terminal elevators, and that
the lower grades received are many times over the lower grades
shipped out, thus defrauding the producers of many millions of dol-
lars every year.

6. In addition to this, we have our mixing elevators at the terminals,
They will mix 1,000,000 bushels of No. 1 northern with 3,000,000
or 4,000,000 bushels of No. 2 or No. 8 northern and have the same
reinspected and graded all as No. 1 northern. This grain is shipped
then, say, to Liverpool. The foreign purchaser receives the bill of
lading, accompanied by the certificate of the grain inspector, show-
ing the grain to be No. 1 northern. He gives it a chemical analysis,
compares it with Canadian No. 1 northern, and finds that the Ameri-
can No. 1 northern is far below the same grade of Canadian wheat.
This discredits all of our honest grades of wheat in the foreign mar-
ket, and the only person who reaps a benefit is the mixer.

7. The producer of grain, the farmer, has no voice whatever in
determining, directly or indirectly, the personnel of the force which
passes upon the grade and quality of every bushel of grain he sells,
* while the purchaser of the grain controls absolutely the personnel of
graders and inspectors. This injustice must be apparent. They
have no means of securing any redress in case of combination, cor-
ruption, or inefficiency of the inspectors and graders.

8. It often happens, as I am creditably informed, that for the pur-
pose of breaking corners in the gambling deals of the wheat pit mil-
lions of bushels of grain are given false certificates to meet a shortage.
In the end the producer pays for the losses resulting from false in-
spection or certification losses. At present every grain market has its
own system of grading and inspection and no two systems are exactly
the same. The result is that the same kind and quality of grain,
shipped from the same field, entering markets of different States, is
graded differently and named differently, creating confusion and
general loss to the producer.

9. Under the present system of inspection all carloads of grain
arriving at the terminals are docked a certain number of pounds per
bushel to cover dirt. undeveloped kernels, or any foreign matter in the
grain. As all this can be removed, and is removed in the elevators,
it should not affect the grading. It is, however, often excessive, and
while the farmer pays the freight on it and gets nothing for it the

purchaser sells it often for a very good price.

HOW NATIONAL INSPECTION AND GRADING WILL REMEDY PRESENT IN.JUSTICE.

1. Under national inspection all inspectors will be free from politi-
cal influence. They will owe no allegiance to buyer or shipper.
Their decision will be free from bias. Their grading will be under
rules and regulations adopted by the Agricultural Department.
They will have as a guide all of the experimentation and accumv-
GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION. 43

lated knowledge of the depar i
investigation and Tahorstore Sie capes ra Sere eae:

2. Proper provision willbe made for reinspection in case of com-
pe in place of the present system of appealing from the deputy
a ete eee whose interest demands that he shall sustain his

3 .

3. Owners of elevator lines could not instruct their buyers under a
national system not to give above a certain grade. The difference
would be immediately apparent as soon as the same grain was in-
spected at the terminals. And they could not long do business under
such instruction when it became publicly known that the local grades
were below the terminal grades.

4. There would be no inducement by the national inspectors to
resolve every doubt in favor of the purchaser and against the pro-
ducer whereby such purchaser, as is now the case, would secure one-
half See of the crop at a grade lower than that to which it
was entitled.

5. Under national inspection it would be impossible to ship out
three times as many bushels of the higher grades as are taken in the
terminal elevators. Under the present system the buyer, by control-
ling the personnel of the board of inspectors, practically determines
what grade he will buy in at and what grade he will sell out at. The
euiene inspectors would apply the same test on grain received
as shipped out.

6. If the shipper mixed his grades such mixture would have to be
again inspected and graded by the Department, and such grain could
not be sold in the market under a false certificate. This would give
confidence in our American standards and facilitate our export busi-
ness in wheat, corn, and flax the same way that our meat inspection
has facilitated commerce in meat.

7. The producer of North Dakota or South Dakota, for instance,
has not the slightest voice in determining the personnel of the politi-
cal inspectors of his grain in Minneapolis, Duluth, Superior, or
Chicago, where he must sell it, nor can his voice be heard as to the
proper system of inspection or grading. Under national inspection
he can be heard. Through his representation he is brought in touch
with the Department, which must listen to his complaint or sugges-
tions, and if well founded will seek to apply a proper remedy. In
addition to this an inspector, if found incompetent, may be dis-
charged or removed to another section of the country where he might
be competent. ‘ te

8. Under national inspection it would be almost impossible to se-
cure false certificates as to grades to assist in gambling deals on the
board of trade. : ;

9. Goakage should have nothing to do with grades. A sufficient
amount is deducted by the buyer to cover not only the amount of poor
wheat and any dirt or foul stuff, but also to cover expense of clean-
ing. While this dockage 1s a total loss to the producer and worse
than a loss, because he is compelled to pay freight on it, it is a gain
to the purchaser, for while the purchaser pays nothing for it he sells
it to be ground into cattle feed or grinds it himself and sells it to good

advantage.
44 GRAIN GRADING AND INSPECTION.
FEASIBILITY OF NATIONAL INSPECTION.

1. The change from State and board of trade inspection now in
vogue to national inspection and grading would be most simple.
The Department could overnight take the present force of inspectors
and make them national inspectors. It could then work off the
incompetent as occasion required. These inspectors would be new
men only in being free from political influence or personal fealty.

2. In as much as national inspection and grading would cover only
grains raised in one State and shipped into another, or grains shipped
from one State to a foreign market, and would not include grains
raised in a State to be used wholly therein. the present number of
inspectors could be greatly reduced.

3. There would be no difficulty in fixing grades. The Department
would naturally accept all present commercial grades and would, of
course, modify them only as experience demanded. The medification,
therefore, would be made without the slightest injury to commercial
contracts or interest.

4. The bill makes provision for sales by samples and without the
use of grades where such may be the custom or where any purchaser
desires to so purchase. But of course all exports should be graded.

5. The present charges for grading and inspection range from 50
cents to 75 cents per car. At 50 cents per car there would be raised
far more than sufficient to cover the expense of Government inspec-
tion and grading. My own belief is that it could be reduced to about
25 or 35 cents per car.

6. There are about eight species of wheat raised in the United
States, each with its own name and each graded by numbers. The
bill provides that such grades and species should be recognized in
the beginning and should be modified only as experience should
demand.