Russell's Commercial Review of February 8, 1916, has a paragraph reading in 

 part as follows: — "As a result of a movement of wheat from North America from July 1 

 to December 31st, the official exports from the United States "were 120,693,000 bushels 

 against 177,088,000 bushels, last year, and Canada 129,539,000 bushels against 

 55,612,000 bushels last year. During the five weeks just past the exports from North 

 America have been 55,666,000 bushels against 46,658,000 bushels a year ago, with a 

 large portion of these shipments still of Canadian wheat." 



In the above table Broomhall shows what a large proportion of the total shipments 

 are credited to Canada and the United States together. The official figures of exports 

 of Canadian wheat and flour as wheat since the 1st of August, 1915, secured from the 

 Canadian Customs Department follow: — 



Exports — Canada Bushels 



Aug. 1915 ; . 3,149,532 



Sept. 1915 7,629,162 



Oct. 1915 35,144,450 



Nov. 1915 47,045,176 



Dec. 1915 42,524,051 



Jan. 1916 8,245,627 



Total 143,737,998 



Apart from Canada's exceptionally large crop, is there any explanation to offer why 

 her exports should compare so favourably with those of the United States? It is under- 

 stood that through the energetic representations of the Federal Government an under- 

 standing had early in the shipping season been reached with the British Government 

 by which the latter should furnish the maximum number of ships for the distribution of 

 Canadian grain. Apart from that, however, the Canada Grain Act of 1912 establishes 

 definite grades of quality and provides for the control of these grades through strict 

 inspection under the Grain Commission. The object of the Act was to perfect the 

 system of Government supervision and control of the grain trade and to do away with 

 difficulties and grievances which had arisen under the former law. In a supplement 

 to George Broomhall's "Corn Trade News" of January 4, 1916, there is contained a 

 long statement from the "London Corn Trade Association" communicated by the 

 American Ambassador in London to the United States Secretary of Agriculture. In 

 this statement — made on behalf of the London Corn Trade Association and "many 

 European buyers of United States Grain shipped from Atlantic and Gulf ports," there 

 is "expressed grave dissatisfaction with the conditions of trading in respect of the 

 quality of grain exported on Certificate." 



The rules governing the inspection of No. 2 Hard Winter Wheat in the State of Illinois 



are quoted and the statement denying that any of the specified qualities existed follows: 



"Large quantities of No. 2 Hard Winter Wheat, 1915 crop, Chicago Inspection, 



have been sold and shipped in the last few months. A very large proportion of this 



wheat was neither dry, nor sound, nor sweet, nor did it weigh 59 pounds per bushel, 



nor even was it in any degree hard on its arrival in this country. Evidence in support 



of these statements is provided in Appendix A. accompanying this communication." 



The representations rather favour buying on sealed sample as practised in the 



Russian trade but commend the Canadian law and practice in the following words: 



"Prior to 1912, serious complaints were made against Canadian grading, but the 



Dominion Grain Act of 1912 and the administrative arrangements ancillary thereto, 



, have effected very great improvements so that all European buyers have now confidence 



in Canadian certificates, and though a great number prefer trading on sample or on 



standard, they acquiesce in the system of grading and its concomitant 'certificate final,' 



as established by Canadian law and carried out by Canadian practice." 



It may be inferred from the long communication that Canada's success in marketing 

 her huge crop is to be ascribed in a considerable measure to the beneficial operation of the 

 Grain Act, as the last paragraphs which we quote as follows show how strongly the 

 London Association feel on the question of federal inspection: 



168 



