WEIGHT OF CORN.
Mr. BENZ'S bill [S. 73]: To amend Section 3 of the act regulating weights and measure, being read the third time,
Mr. GARRIGUS moved to amend by making the weight of a bushel of corn on the cob seventy pounds, instead of sixty-eight, as in the bill. In every direction the weight in surrounding States is seventy pounds.
Mr. KRAMER thought a change of weight would operate against the producer, and would be wholly in the interest of grain dealers. He opposed the change.
Mr. WOOLLEN also opposed the amendment.
Mr. SHAFFER favored the adoption of the amendment. It will equalize the weight of corn in Indiana as compared with other States There is a memorial before this body from a Board of Trade, asking for this change.
Mr. HART has had experience in raising and selling corn. After the 1st of January a bushel of corn will weigh sixty-eight pounds and pay for the shelling.
Mr. HEFRON--If we change the weight of corn in the ear it will destroy the rule that has governed the weight of corn for years in Indiana. On the general average the present law fixes it where it ought to be. Petitions for a change came from grain speculators. He was opposed to disturbing the standard that has been maintained for so many years.
Mr. DAVIDSON has tested this matter personally and could say the weight of corn on the cob varies with the condition of the ear as to the dryness and dampness. In the northern part of the State sixty-eight pounds is ample weight, on an average. He favored the bill as it stands, and opposed the amendment.
Mr. MENZIES, representing one of the largest corn producing regions in the State, has changed his mind since last session, and while opposing this change then he should favor it now. As a commercial proposition, Indiana should not stand out for sixty-eight pounds, while the States on all sides have seventy pounds Indiana should fall into line with the surrounding States. The weight in the Illinois side of the Wabash and on the Kentucky side of the Ohio, both being the same, should fix the weight in this State.
Mr. COMSTOCK two years ago introduced a bill embracing this amendment. He then thought it right, and his experience has confirmed his first judgment. He hoped the amendment would prevail.
The amendment was rejected by yeas, 18; nays, 24.
Mr. Hutchinson's bill [S. 166] for relief of sureties of a former Trustee of Coolspring Township, Laporte County, was laid on the table by concurrence in a Committee report.
