48 CIRCULAR 10 0, U. S. DEPARTMENT of agriculture 



Section 1 of the Virginia act states: 



Every person who shall deliver any leaf tobacco to a warehouseman or to a 

 cooperative marketing association for sale, offer for sale or display for sale 

 thereof, shall impart to such warehouseman or cooperative marketing associa- 

 tion, the true name of the owner of said leaf tobacco ; and it shall be the duty 

 of such warehouseman or cooperative marketing association to keep a record of 

 such purchase or delivery showing the quantity of leaf tobacco so delivered, 

 and said name of the owner thereof, given as provided herein. 



The keeper of such records is required to permit inspection thereof 

 and provision is made for penalty for violation of the act. This 

 act was held constitutional in an opinion in which the Supreme Court 

 of Virginia said : 



The statute was adopted to prevent fraud, and, if there had been a universal 

 custom of warehousemen to indulge in such subterfuges whereby frauds were 

 promoted, then it is manifest that the occasion had arisen for the state to 

 intervene to prevent them. It is said by the learned counsel for the warehouse- 

 men that it is " pertinent and proper for the court in this case to inquire into 

 the true purpose of the act in question and ascertain whether it is a valid 

 exercise of the police power of the state, or whether it is in reality ' an arbitrary 

 interference with private business,' or whether it imposes ' unusual and un- 

 necessary restrictions ' upon a lawful occupation, or ' invades property rights.' " 

 Responding to these inquiries we have no doubt whatever that it is a valid 

 exercise of the police power ; that it is not an arbitrary interference with private 

 business; indeed the statute recognizes and accommodates itself to the cus- 

 tomary methods of such business ; namely, the identification of the specific piles 

 of tobacco by the name of the true owner. That this invades no property 

 rights is apparent. 24 



MEMBERSHIP CONTRACTS 



As a prerequisite to membership in the association each applicant 

 was required to sign a 5 -year marketing contract in which he ap- 

 plied for membership. The contract ran from the member to the 

 central organization with no intervening local organization. Mem- 

 bership was to be limited to actual growers of tobacco and land- 

 lords who received part of the crop as rent. Each member had one 

 vote. Members were required to deliver all of their tobacco except 

 that covered by a crop mortgage existing prior to joining, to the 

 association at the place specified. Members were required to notify 

 the association of any crop mortgage made after joining the associa- 

 tion ; the association retained the right to take delivery of the tobacco, 

 and to pay off all or part of the crop mortgage for the account of 

 the grower and to charge the amount paid against him individually. 



The substance of the marketing agreement was as follows : 



The association agreed to buy and the grower agreed to sell and deliver to 

 the association all the tobacco produced by or for him or acquired by him as 

 landlord or lessor, for the 5-year period named in the contract, no provision 

 being made for withdrawal during the life of the contract. 



Provision was made that all tobacco should be delivered at the earliest 

 reasonable time, after it was picked or cured, to the order of the association, 

 at the warehouse or plant controlled or specified by the association. 



The association was authorized to commingle the tobacco of one grower with 

 tobacco of a like type, grade, and quality of other growers, and to classify the 

 tobacco delivered by its members, which classification was conclusive. 



The association agreed to resell the tobacco which it received from its mem- 

 bers at the best prices obtainable and to pay to the grower the net amount 

 received, after deducting the costs of maintaining the association and of 



24 Reaves Warehouse Corporation v. Commonwealth and Motley et al. v. Same, 126 

 S. E. 87. 



