7 AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



for weed seeds, dirt, shrunken kernels, and other foreign materials, and 

 then decided the allowance for dockage to be deducted. The method 

 in common use was to pass a sample of the grain through a sieve and by 

 a series of siftings to separate out the refuse. Weighing the grain to deter- 

 mine its grade was the next step; for this a "hand tester" or "test kettle" 

 was used. Once the grade and weight had been determined, a price per 

 bushel was offered. 



According to the Federal Trade Commission, the highly competitive 

 character of the country grain trade had forced many agents, seeking grain 

 for their respective companies, to overgrade the grain offered them and 

 then to resort to heavy allowance for dockage and underweighing in 

 order to offset the overgrading. This became the practice especially when 

 the farmer threatened to take his grain to a neighboring elevator. A 

 sympathetic agent, often influenced by the deep-seated rural prejudices 

 against the line company which he represented, or possibly by having 

 himself been a farmer, or, as was very common, by having relatives who 

 were farmers, was naturally tempted to overgrade the grain. And, since 

 grading was largely a matter of individual judgment, the agent could 

 hardly be taken to task for what he had done. 41 



But whatever favors were shown the farmer in the grading of his grain 

 were generally more than offset by the system of cleaning grain that was 

 customary. Farmers who cleaned their grain before hauling it to market 

 had less of a problem than those who depended on the elevator for this 

 service. Sometimes the dockage was returned to the farmer, who paid a 

 charge for the cleaning of his grain ; in other cases, the elevators performed 

 the service gratis. Neither of these methods caused any difficulty, because 

 in both instances the dockage was returned to the farmer. But there was 

 trouble when the elevator kept the dockage and gave the farmer nothing 

 for it. In defense of this practice it could be argued that the elevator was 

 entitled to the dockage in compensation for the services it provided. 42 



The exact beginnings of the cooperative grain-elevator movement are 

 unknown. It is well established that the Grange, the Farmers' Alliance, 



41. Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the Grain Trade (7 vols., Wash- 

 ington, 1920-1926), I, 99-103; The Application of Dockage in the Marketing of 

 Wheat, U. S. Dept. Agri., Farmers' Bulletin 919 (Washington, 1917), pp. 3-4. 



42. F.T.C., The Grain Trade, I, 8-9, 204-6. 



