March 20, 1929

GRADING OF GRAIN

WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE


The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kay for concurrence in the third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


LIB

James Malcolm (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, the

problems arising out of the administration of the Canada Grain Act are, as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) says, of

Grading of Grain-Mr. Malcolm

such magnitude that one naturally hesitates to comment thereon except after one has been very thoroughly and fully informed on every phase of the subject. Personally I do not think much will be gained by debate in the house at this time, but if the house would grant the request of the chairman of the committee on agriculture for an enlargement of the reference, these matters which are contentious could be investigated before the committee by calling witnesses and taking evidence. The committee would then be assisted in making recommendations to the government and to parliament for changes in the Canada Grain Act which would correct the evils complained of if they were found to exist.

Early in the session I consulted with various western members of parliament on both sides of the house, and learned of the seriousness and the variety of complaints that were lodged against the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Board of Standards in regard to the administration of the act. I told all of those members-and they agreed with me- that the government would grant a reference to a committee so that all these matters might be thoroughly gone into and reported upon to parliament. Most of the members with whom I consulted felt satisfied that if the reference were broad enough, nothing would be gained^ by discussion in the house, until the committee had reported, and I had hoped that the request of the chairman of the committee on agriculture for an enlargement of the reference would be granted by the house so that the committee could proceed with its work. The reference which is before the committee arose out of a resolution by the hon. member for Qu Appelle (Mr. Millar) stating that proteins should be considered a factor in the grading of grain.

But there are on the order paper two other resolutions, one by the hon. member fcr Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) contending that the mixing of grain is an evil and that mixing should be eliminated, and another resolution which stands in the name of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans), criticizing the action of the Board of Grain Commissioners in permitting the use of a certain ticket which contained additional words-words which weTe not prescribed in the actual ticket given in the Canada Grain Act. Under these circumstances I do not feel that the chairman of .the committee on agriculture and the members of that committee could have done anything else but ask for an enlargement of their reference, so that the whole three resolutions, which I chink cover the major points of criticism,

might be dealt, with and fully reported upo-n. To endeavour to discuss any one of these points at the present moment before the evidence is heard is in my opinion futile. To discuss charges against the Board of Grain Commissioners when the board have not had an opportunity to give evidence as to why they ruled or failed to rule in a certain way, I think is unfair. So far as I am concerned, I have found the Board of Grain Commissioners at all times anxious to assist in the administration of the act in the interests of the producer. Whether they have made mistakes of judgment or not will be brought out in the evidence produced before the committee. Mr. Boyd has been acting as chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners since March of 1917. I have had no reason to criticize Mr. Boyd, and I do not propose to pass judgment until evidence is adduced and he has had a chance to reply. Therefore it seems to me. Mr. Speaker, that it would be very much out of place for me as a minister of the crown to join in any comment on a public servant, nor do I think that anything can be gained by this debate. I think I am quite right in saying to the house that much evidence will likely be adduced in the committee, and the report [DOT] of the committee can, and no douibt will be fully discussed in the house. I think this matter can be very much 'better handled by having the discussion take place in the tight of the evidence which will be taken before the committee. I can therefore only recommend to the house that this debate be as short as possible, that the chairman of the agriculture committee be granted this reference, and that the discussion when the committee's report comes before the house be as full and as free as parliament may wish.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):

Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who have preceded me in one remark, and that is as to the importance of the question that is before the house at this moment. When hon. members take into consideration the fact that the greatest single wealth-producing commodity in all Canada is wheat, they will begin to realize what it means. When they consider further that it involves annually hundreds of millions of dollars of real new wealth created by the producers out of the soil of the country, they will begin to realize something of its importance. When they further consider the fact that there is not a single financial institution, not a single manufacturing institution, and hardly an individual in the Dominion that is not interested directly or indirectly not only in the proper handling of wheat but

Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

in the price received by the producer for it, the importance of this question will be realized.

The Canada Grain Act came into existence in 1900 as a result of widespread agitation among the farmers of western Canada, who at that time were suffering under serious injustices at the hands of the organized grain trade and the railways of Canada. In 1912 it was found necessary to place the administration of the act in the hands of a board of grain commissioners. That board was supposed to be an independent board, an efficient board, one above reproach and criticism, and in order to be sure that it should be that kind of board, we provided that the chairman should receive a salary of $10,000 a year, together with many perquisites in regard to such matters as stenographic assistance, office buildings, office fittings, a special car for travelling, and much else. The two assistant commissioners receive the sum of $8,000 a year, and also participate in these perquisites.

We believed at that time, those of us who were here and interested in the trade, that this was a splendid step forward and would protect the interests of the farmer. After all, what was the object in the appointment of the board? The primary object was to administer the act so that the rights of the farmers would be preserved and protected at all times. Let me emphasize that. Professor Patton, in his well-known work on the " Growth of Grain Cooperative Marketing System," says:

The first grain commissioner-

Referring to the chairman of the commission:

-is the attorney general for the grain growers.

He is the man at all times expected to prosecute any offenders against the act, any men or companies who violate the rights or privileges of the farmers under the act. The Turgeon report also recognizes the importance of this body. At page 154 of the report of the royal grain inquiry commission, headed by Chief Justice Turgeon, which was filed in the house in 1925, these words are found:

The Canada Grain Act, 1912, created the Board of Grain Commissioners to administer the act. The importance of the proper exercise of its functions can scarcely be overestimated. It is of vital concern to Canada.

Chief Justice Turgeon, chairman of the royal grain inquiry commision, was satisfied of the transcendent importance of the proper administration of the act and the proper discharge of the functions of the board.

Let us examine the situation as we have it to-day. In the year that has just passed we have had more dissatisfaction in western 78594-71

Canada than at any other time since I have been there. We have had a more pronounced uprising of definite antagonistic opinion against the board than ever before and if the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in criticism of the Board of Railway Commissioners were justified, then I say to this house that a condemnation more damning than any ever pronounced by him would be justified as applied to the Board of Grain Commissioners. The Board of Grain Commissioners has utterly and completely lost the confidence of those whom it is supposed to protect in western Canada. Of that there is no question. All one has to do, if he seeks evidence of that, is to study the hearings of the royal commission which was appointed by the Saskatchewan government last year, and which has been travelling during the entire grain-moving season through the province of Saskatchewan, and which I understand is about to hold sittings in the province of Alberta. At the most minute rural points, places through which one could pass and find only a round dozen or so of individuals, in the most outlying country districts you would find the hall jammed with two, three, four or five hundred disgruntled, irritated, antagonistic farmers. Something was behind all this dissatisfaction; there was something wrong. This government surely must have known that there was something wrong. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) should have been apprised of the seriousness of the situation, and I am going to say this much: So far as I know, the moment his attention was called, towards the beginning of this session of parliament, to the need' for action in a certain direction, he took action. I will come to that in a moment.

I say that so far as the producers are concerned, the board apparently has failed to function satisfactorily and has lost their confidence. Now I ask this question: Is there any use under heaven in this government persisting in continuing the personnel of a board, irrespective of how worthy they may be, if they have utterly lost the confidence of those whom they are supposed to serve? I do not wish to criticize the individual members of the board, and I have nothing of a personal character against a single member of the commission. Let me further state at this stage, for fear I may forget to do so later, that so far as I am concerned, and I think I am speaking for those in the group around me, there is no intention at any time to attempt to make political capital out of this situation. It is too serious a matter for

1122 COMMONS

Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

politics to be permitted to enter into it. I think the western members as a whole, whether they sit in the ranks of the Liberals opposite, or in the group around me, or the odd one or two in the ranks of the Conservative party to my right, are satisfied that some solution must be found of the difficulties facing the grain growers in the west, and that some settlement of the differences that have arisen between themselves and the board and other concerns must be found if we are to attempt at all to remedy the deplorable situation which now confronts us. When you come to a point where a question arises which may involve the loss, not of a million or two, but of tens of millions of dollars to the wheat growers in Canada, the people who produce from the soil real wealth, then surely it is time that the Department of Trade and Commerce, in fact the government itself, take recognition of the situation that has arisen and courageously cope with it.

The board has utterly failed to function. I make that definite pronouncement, Mr. Speaker, fully realizing the seriousness of the Statement. The board has failed to function because it has not recognized several factors. These are: first, the immense increase in area of wheat growing since 1912. Why, at that time we never thought of producing wheat in large quantities in the Peace river country; we never dreamt of the western movement via Vancouver of grain to the proportions which it has reached to-day, with new and extensive problems involving terminals, inspection of cargo shipments and all the other diverse problems affecting the trade. At that time we did not dream-we did dream, it iis true, but we had not immediately in front of us the problem of a northern outlet, which is another phase now to come under the attention of the commission. The production of wheat has more than doubled in that period. The capacity of elevator space in country houses and terminals has more than doubled in that period.

The problems have also increased almost proportionately during that period, and in latter years an added and very distinct problem has arisen. As long as the handling of wheat continued in the old channels it is true there were difficulties, but those difficulties have been enormously emphasized lately by the institution of the growers' own marketing system. This has brought an entirely new factor into the handling of wheat. The Turgeon commission even as far back as 1925 recognized that the commission itself must be assisted to function more efficiently, and it reported definitely:

We do strongly recommend that the board should be supplied with sufficient expert technical and clerical assistance to enable it to accomplish its routine duties and at the same time to have opportunity to give a large part of its attention to its general functions of supervision, discipline and control over the grain trade.

The Turgeon commission was satisfied that the grain commissioners were not giving proper supervision, were not exercising proper control, were not properly disciplining the trade at that time; and the commission's report recommended definitely that steps should be taken to supply the board with all possible necessary assistance.

Why did the Turgeon commission do that instead of recommending an increase in the personnel of the board? Because the Board of Grain Commissioners themselves have consistently and persistently resisted any proposal to increase their number; and so this way out was discovered and proposed.

Now, since 1925 I must presume that the Board of Grain Commissioners have been supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce with all the technical assistance, all the technical stenographic and clerical help that they required to function properly. If not, somebody else will be held to account. But we must presume that this has been done, for we are paying the bills. The other taxpayers of Canada are not called upon to pay one dollar in connection with the administration of the Grain Act. We pay for it utterly and completely out of the proceeds of the grain we ourselves sell. Therefore, the Turgeon commission having made this recommendation, we must presume that the government recognized the situation and supplied the board with all the necessary facilities. Yet, Mr. Speaker, during the past year, when as never before at almost every point in western Canada disturbances in connection with the Grain Act had arisen, when as never before the farmers were protesting against the injustices they were suffering at the hands of the country elevator operators, at the hands of the organized trade itself established at Winnipeg, at the hands of the terminal elevators, there was not a single investigation undertaken by the Board of Grain Commissioners until more than 80 per cent of the grain crop had moved. In spite of the fact that affidavit after affidavit had gone into the board at Fort William, in spite of the fact that hundreds of appeals-not -ten, not a dozen, but hundreds-had been made to the board for an adjustment of differences as between the farmers and the trade, the board failed to hold one single investigation

MARCH 20, 1929 H23

Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

in western Canada until late in January of this year after 80 per cent of the crop had moved.

Now, Mr. Speaker, is that functioning? In all the years that have passed by ever since this board was established there has not been one single check-off by the board of country houses. There is not a grain-growing farmer in this house who does not understand some of the abuses that take place there. There is not a farmer who does not know that mixing is practised in country houses. The evidence before the Brown commission in Saskatchewan brought out clearly again and again that mixing is practised in the bins of the country elevators. Why, sir, there is evidence to show that elevator agents at country points, having, say, ten bins at their disposal for special bin purposes, have actually had as many as thirteen, fourteen and fifteen farmers hauling grain to special bins and only ten to put them in.

These are the things that have cropped up. I will give another illustration. We find in the little town of De Winton a Chevrolet truck being used to haul wheat-an isolated instance perhaps, but it may be found in other places also. This Chevrolet truck is weighed empty every day after the wheat has been hauled, and there is a variation of over 900 pounds in the weight of that empty track during thirteen days of hauling; and there has not been a drop of rain in the country in the meantime. Nine hundred pounds variation in the weight of an empty Chevrolet truck in the town of De Winton. I have all the facts in connection with this case and I believe sworn to in an affidavit. An appeal was made to the Board of Grain Commissioners to adjust the discrepancy. What do you think the board did? Did the board send out an inspector at once to check off the scales secretly and quietly? No, the board refused to act and wrote to the complainant: If you will send in an affidavit we will consider the matter. What is the result? The company is notified that Mr. Tom Jones, of De Winton, filed an affidavit with the board to-day that the scales must be out of order, that there is a deficiency of about 900 pounds. The company writes back to the board: We have had a report from our agent that this is not true. The Board of Grain Commissioners having supplied the brass band to warn the elevator agent, now sends an inspector to investigate. Do you think the elevator agent is going to leave his scales untouched? The board defends itself solely on the ground that a clause in the act provides that an investigation shall take place if an affidavit be filed. But in no section of

78594-71^

the act does it say that the board has not power to check off at country elevators. As a matter of fact the Turgeon commission in its report says this:

The board has the power to license elevators and to revoke licenses.

And will the house kindly note this:

We believe that there follows from this power the obligations to exercise some measure of inspection of the way in which the operators of elevators and other licenses deal with the grain producers.

The Turgeon commission further recommended that there should be surprise checkoffs at country elevators, otherwise they never can check up on those problems or difficulties, they never can find out what the elevator agent is doing. If you are going to compel the farmer to send in an affidavit with every complaint, and if the correspondence with the farmer is to be made open to the companies before any investigation is held, you might as well not have the grain act at all for any good it is going to do. If you warn the company beforehand of the action about to be taken, they are certain to safeguard their own interests.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB-PRO

Robert Forke (Minister of Immigration and Colonization)

Liberal Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

Was that an isolated case

or was it an habitual thing? Because a variation of 15 bushels in a load could not often happen without something being heard of it.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

I have

stated there was a variation of 900 pounds in the weight of the empty truck.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB-PRO

Robert Forke (Minister of Immigration and Colonization)

Liberal Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

Could it not have been for

once a mistake? We have all seen that happen in country elevators.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

I presume

the board could, have found it out had they been interested enough to inquire, but apparently they were not. Let me mention this case. A gentleman named Morrison, down in the constituency of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), sends in a complaint to the board in writing. The board does not even bother to reply to the complaint; it has not even the courtesy to reply. Mr. Morrison takes the matter up with the member for Macleod. The member for Macleod is quite surprised to find that twenty-nine days have elapsed since the letter was sent and so he wires to the board. The board sends the hon. member a reply by wire but no reply to the man himself, so that the hon. member suggests that the board might have the courtesy to reply directly to the farmer who made the complaint; whereupon the board replies, thirty days after receipt of the com-

I124 COMMONS

Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

plaint in writing from the farmer. Now is that an efficient functioning? Is that an efficient administration of the grain act? Is that acting as attorney for the grain growers? Is it acting in the capacity of protector of their interests and their rights? A board of this character, Mr. Speaker, is of no value whatever unless it keeps in close personal touch with the growers all the time. A board stationed in Fort William is useless, even though it be a good board, even though it be able to perform efficiently its routine functions. To be effective the board must be itinerant at least during 'the grain moving season. That was recommended also by the Turgeon commission; it was recommended in most emphatic terms. The Board of Grain Commissioners has always resisted the idea of itinerancy of the character suggested by Commissioner Turgeon. I will not mention any names, but one of the commissioners will make the statement to you, "I have travelled thirty thousand miles during the last year." Yes; but I submit that they do not travel to many of the points where they are required. They do not visit the points where controversy is arising. I say to the government, therefore, that if they wish to have the act efficiently administered it will be necessary for them to allow the board-indeed, to compel the board-to be itinerant, to move from point to point throughout the prairie provinces during the grainrfnoving season, so that at any time when a little cancer spot appears they can administer the proper remedy, and administer it speedily. I am satisfied that there are hundreds of complaints that have been really of minor importance and that could have been readily disposed of through personal attention on the part of the board. But instead of that, these complaints have been allowed to rankle, to canker, to grow and spread into the whole community until a situation has arisen such as I stated at the outset, namely, that the board has utterly lost the confidence of the farmers of western Canada.

There are many other points which one feels called upon to discuss in connection with this particular matter, but I come now to the most important factor in arousing the ire of the farmers of the west during the last year. I refer to the question of the so-called hybrid ticket. It Is not necessary for me to go into the whole history of the question. It is sufficient to say that obviously it was the will of the committee of parliament and of parliament itself that- the grower of wheat should have the right to determine the destin-

ation of his wheat after he had grown it. No one disputes that to-day. No one disputes that it was undoubtedly the will of parliament, and the wish Of the pool through whom the grower handles a good deal of his wheat today, that he should have the right to determine where it Should go. After the act is amended the grower gets the right to determine the destination of his grain, and then somebody does something with the schedules to the act. The old ticket is submitted for change, not to parliament but to the governor in council, and a change is brought about by order in council, taking out of the act almost all of clause 150.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

On whose recommendation?

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

On the

recommendation of the board-and it is inserted into the ticket itself. As Mr. Milliken, the legal counsel for the Saskatchewan pool, has said, where five words would have sufficed-

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

James Malcolm (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. MALCOLM:

My hon. friend has mads the statement that on the recommendation of. the board there was passed an order in council which takes out of the act practically all of section 150. What does he mean by that?

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

I did not

say that. At least, I should have said they copied out of the act on to the new ticket almost all of section 150, and left certain other words. So far as that particular change was concerned, although much of it was unnecessary, five words would have sufficed, as Mr. Milliken said; but instead of that forty words odd are transferred from the act, having the effect, as they appear on the ticket, if not of abolishing the rights of the grower, at any rate of permitting the abuse of the ticket. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) shakes his head. Well, I say this to him definitely. While the wording provided for by the order in council would in itself have caused no harm, if the wording of tne ticket as authorized by the order in council had not been such as it was, the addition of the other words would not either have caused any harm. In his evidence before the committee the other day Mr. Milliken so stated There is no necessity-

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Does my hon. friend mean to say that taking a section of an act which embodies a contract and putting that into the form of the contract makes it possible to break the contract which the act provides for?

Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

When additional words are inserted.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Additional words were

not put in by the order in council, as my hon. friend knows.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

The minister is setting up straw men to have the pleasure of punching their noses, and that does not do any good because the hon. gentleman heard me clearly. I have made myself clear in the matter. I have stated definitely that the wording of the act copied into the ticket did not of itself create a situation which would result in a violation of the grower's rights.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

James Malcolm (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. MALCOLM:

The previous ticket was copied from the act. Did not the board do the proper thing when they asked that the ticket be reprinted so as to bring it into conformity with the act as amended at the last session of parliament?

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

No; and I will tell you why. To have properly recognized the intention of parliament, they should have taken into consideration other clauses in the act as well as that particular one, and instead of putting in the words, " the grain is deliverable to the person on whose account it is taken in the store," the intention would have been more clearly indicated had they said that the grain should be deliverable to the person who owns the grain-the owner of the grain.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

James Malcolm (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. MALCOLM:

My hon. friend surely does not imply that the board should recommend putting into the ticket something which is not in the act. The act provides distinctly that the ticket shall indicate what the act itself states.

Topic:   GRADING OF GRAIN
Subtopic:   WHEAT-INSPECTION, SHIPMENT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Permalink

March 20, 1929