HORTICULTURE 



-May 3, 1919 



WHY THERE ARE MORE UNPAID 



CLAIMS AGAINST RAILROADS 



FOR LOST OR DAMAGED 



GOODS THAN EVER 



BEFORE. 



I am told that there are more un- 

 paid claims on file today against rail- 

 roads for loss or damage to merchan- 

 dise en route than ever before in the 

 history o£ railroading. Perhaps the 

 readers hereof, all of whom use the 

 railroads for shipping goods either in 

 or out. would be interested to know 

 why this is, and what chance there is 

 for relief. 



Everybody knows that as a war ex- 

 pedient, the United States Government 

 took over most, though not all, the 

 railroads in the country. In order to 

 cut red tape, and get the benefit of 

 single control in the shipment of mer 

 chaudise and men, this was deemed 

 necessary and nobody objected. In 

 the beginning. Congress tried to pro- 

 tect the interest of shippers through 

 the act of March 21, 1918, which, in 

 spite of the taking over, made the rail- 

 roads subject to all existing laws, and 

 as liable to shippers for loss or dam- 

 age to merchandise as they were be- 

 fore. Under this act a shipper or re- 

 ceiver who had a claim against a rail- 

 road for lost or damaged goods, could 

 sue and get judgment just as if the 

 road was not under government man- 

 agement, but he could not issue ex- 

 ecution on that judgment. In other 

 words, his judgment simply stayed 

 there on record, binding the railroad 

 real estate — and drawing interest — 

 until such time as the legal ban was 

 removed and he could recover on it. 

 He couldn't get his money right away. 

 but he was protected until he could. 



This would have been fairly satis- 

 factory to concerns that had claims 

 against the railroad, if the govern 

 ment had only allowed it to remain, 

 but later the government charged that 

 people were bringing unfounded suits 

 against the railroad companies, and 

 therefore issued a regulation, as to the 

 validity of which I take the liberty 

 of expressing great doubts. This reg- 

 ulation provided that all suits for loss 

 or damage to merchandise in transit, 

 instead of being brought against the 

 railroad, must be brought against Wil- 

 liam G. McAdoo, Director-General of 

 Kail roads. This was so that there 

 should nnt be any judgments whatever 

 on record against the railroads, which 

 was all right so far as the government 

 was concerned, but grossly unfair to 

 the shipper, who was placed in this 

 position: He has a claim against a 

 railroad company for loss or damage 

 to goods in transit. It may be abso- 



lutely clear, and may run into a large 

 sum of money, which he may sorely 

 need. Under the act of March 21, 1918, 

 he could have brought suit and gotten 

 judgment, anyway, and the judgment 

 would have drawn interest until it was 

 paid. Under the later regulation he 

 can still bring his suit, but it must be 

 not against the company, but against 

 an individual — the director-general. It 

 he gets his judgment he can't do any- 

 thing with it either now or later, be- 

 cause it isn't against the railroad at 

 all and therefore does not bind railroad 

 property and gives no security. 



The regulation has placed in the di- 

 rector-general the autocratic power to 

 say whether judgments technically 

 against him. but properly against the 

 railroad, for loss or damage to goods 

 in transit, should be paid. In most 

 cases he has ignored them and I am 

 told that the number of unpaid claims 

 on file is stupendous, and is mounting 

 higher all the time. 



I have never believed— and I think 

 this view is shared by most lawyers — 

 that the regulations which compelled 

 claimants to bring their suits against 

 an individual who was not responsible, 

 either legally or financially, instead of 

 against the proper defendant, the rail- 

 road, was worth the paper it was writ- 

 ten on. I do not believe that any 

 claimant is bound to consider it, and 

 feel quite confident that the courts 

 would rule that while under the act 

 of March 21, 1918, a claimant could not 

 collect a judgment from the property 

 of any railroad which had been taken 

 over by the government, nevertheless 

 he could sue the railroad direct and 

 get his judgment against his railroad, 

 notwithstanding the order. So far as 

 I have seen, nobody has raised the 

 question as yet, believing that the rail- 

 roads were shortly to go back to their 

 proper owners. Since it appears they 

 are not, however. I shall expect some- 

 body to raise it very shortly. 



A number of other orders have been 

 issued by the Federal Administration 

 restricting claimants' right to sue, such 

 as Order IS, which compels a claimant 

 to bring suit either in the county where 

 the cause of action arose, or in tin 

 county where the plaintiff lived when 

 the cause of action arose. While this is 

 also an obstruction, as it may not be 

 possible or convenient for the claimant 

 to sue in either of those two districts, 

 it is not so important as the regulation 

 requiring the suit to be against the 

 director-general, which is equivalen* t > 

 a denial of any real right of action at 

 all. 



My feeling is that these regulations. 

 especially the one last mentioned, are 

 worth no more than the one discussed 



in a previous article, in which the 

 government forbade the attachment of 

 railroad employes' wages for unpaid 

 bills. They are, I believe, an arbitrary 

 and unlawful effort to destroy existing 

 legal rights which are beyond the pow- 

 er of the Railroad Administration, or 

 of the United States Government itself 

 to destroy. What shall a shipper do 

 to get around the regulation which 

 gives him only a judgment against the 

 director-general? If I were retained 

 to raise the question I should do it by 

 bringing the suit against the railroad 

 company. The railroad would then it- 

 self raise the question by pleading that 

 I had no right to do that, but under 

 the government order it must be 

 brought against the director-general 

 The court would then decide which 

 was right. 

 (Copyright, April, 1919, by Elton ■! . 

 Buckley. I 



STEAM STERILIZATION KILLS 

 DISEASES INFECTING SOILS. 



Steam sterilization of seed beds to 

 control diseases and kill weed seeds 

 and hibernating insects is recom- 

 mended by the United States Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture, and is described 

 in detail in a bulletin issued for free 

 distribution. 



The open-air method of steriliza- 

 tion, which is described as the most 

 satisfactory yet developed, brings 

 about the direct application of steam 

 to the soil by means of an inverted 

 pan or hood. The equipment needed 

 includes a boiler of 20 horsepower or 

 greater capacity, heavy steam hose, 

 iron pipe, canvas or burlap, and a 

 steaming pan to cover about 72 square 

 feet. Steam of about 100 pounds pres- 

 sure should be applied to the area un- 

 der the pan for 3o minutes, when the 

 pan is moved to the next area, and a 

 covering is placed over the soil just 

 treated to conserve the heat and allow 

 it to penetrate to the lower soil. Seed 

 may be safely sown 12 hours after the 

 steaming. 



The method has been demonstrated 

 to be effective for greenhouse work, 

 and it is easily seen that it can be 

 applied to hotbeds and cold frames. 



PATENTS GRANTED. 



1,298,134. Plant Setter. Richard L. 

 Wilson, Union City, Tenn. 



1,298,329. Motor-Plow and Cultivator. 

 Edwin John Goode. Saffren Walden, 

 England. 



1.298.482. Land-Roller, Guy E. Dun- 

 ham, Berea. Ohio, assignor to the 

 Dunham Company. Berea, Ohio, a 

 corporation of Ohio. 



