It seems to me that the object of the Bill is. to a considerable extent, Mr. WALSH.
to furnish grist to the lawyers. The usual custom is for the farmer to sell his grain wherever he finds the best market. Surely there should be a guarantee given the farmer that he did or did not sell the grain for seed. Otherwise the merchant can throw the responsibility back upon the farmer and endless litigation would be the result. There should be some provision to protect the farmer or he will be in continual trouble. No doubt where a seed grower has grown grain for seed, where he has exhibited it for sale as seed, it is necessary that the law should protect the purchaser against the purchase of foul seeds. But when a farmer sells grain without understanding that it is purchased to be sold again as seed, why should he be responsible? A country merchant, purchasing grain from a farmer might ask if he could sell the grain for seed. The farmer, not understanding the law-it would take a long time to understand it-gives his consent, and sells his grain at the best price he can get for it. The merchant can afterwards plead that he purchased the grain for seed and so paid a high price, and, if proceeded against under the law, might throw the responsibility on the farmer. I submit that the farmer, selling his grain in that way must be given better protection than he is given under this Bill.
Topic: INSPECTION AND SALE OF SEEDS.