Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-01-31

"AaSo dUOte SOileye3 - Situated the
sum OF $4,000 each; and the residue Of the said
capital. say S25,0Si Ut the University Of vir-
ginia.
RESOLVED also that the pledge of $50, 900 made
by the act before referred TO in favor OF the Collie
ges and Academies or intermediate schools, be re-
dueed to 200 per annuun IN consequence os the
appropriation OF the bsforc mentioned sum of
Slsusuoo OF principal, to those erme.a,e schools
This resolution under the rule just adopted, must
lay one day. An unsuccessful motion was made
to print it,
ISnSrossed bills pssset--drcctag the payment
oil a sum OF money from the l.iierary Fund to the
treasurer of the School Commissioners in Green
oriar- Allowisg Wm. Whorion, free man OF
color TO remain in The state. Concerning Andrew
4 IeH'ng ALLOWING Lucy Ann Dunse, a free
woman OF color, 10 remain in the state.
Resolutions from the c. of &. off, were read and
concarred In declaring reasonable the petition OF
sundry Inhabitants OF the part of the state
LOT an amendment to the law regulating the prac-
lice oil suing Out aad prosecuting writs Of Scire-
iacias, to repeal letters patent, &c.-Rejectiay
the petition OF Seth Clark. that free woman, the
wie OF ohe OF his slaYes may be permitted to re-
SIDE In the state resolution of The c. of Claims,
declaring reasonable the petition of N B.rksdaie,
that TWO aud halt per cent, additional, he allow
eu urn ON the revenue of Albemarle, was taken up.
IHr GW land moved to reverse the opinion of the
committee and was Supported by Mr.. Everett.
siessrs. gordon and Wood opposed the motion;
but 1t prevailed. a resolution from the same Com
mhtee, rejecting the petition uf Can't. ]. Paxton
commanding the Lexington Arsenal, for compen-
salon tor additional duties, and pay for his private
servant. Mr. Moore. of II. supported by Mr.
Thite, moved 10 reverse the decision of the Conn
mHter. The motion was further supported by MIR.
rateson' oil =. and opposed by Mr.. Haryie, and
prevailed.
| The Repor, Of the COMMITTEES apno;n,.a % en-
guire into the abuses committed at the tobacco in
sPecIiohs was taken up on motion of Mr.. Hurpie
IN. Puftesoa OF Nelson, mentioned several
defects In the report, and moved to reconmit il.
he was In ravof of the tenor of the rspor.; but
wished to correct some OF its i,nperfections. and
| embrace several ideas that had been omitted He
would amend IT by altering the recommendation
that refused tobacco after being reprised or stem
heu shosd be sent back to the Warehouse where
IL was refused. This would be expensive and ,rou.
oesome IN many respects, and particularly as to-
tie tobacco refused in Lynchburr and s,ernm-d in
Nicnhonu. II the waste tobacco which belonged
10 the planter was 10 be sold for the benefit of the
treasury, the manifest ought TO be issuel without
cnafSe 10 the planter, aud the inspector be paid by
| the treasury. Hementioned other defec,s in ,h.
report, and among them was the omission 10 or.-
vent loose parcels OF tobacco passing the locks
without better regulations than now existed II
was 20 save The time OF the house that lie wished
| recommitment
\ -IsSSrS tuyi
OF p. T.. and HIlson.
.hr. Harsic was in favor of recomn;,,;,, Oh.
report He thought it ought never to have bee
MAIZE 10 the House, because it was calculated tn
make an Impression that depredatons aud theft.
naa oeen committed to- considerable amount: tina,
IN the absence OF the testimony before the commit
tee' the character OF the inspectors was exposed
| ~ uHJus. inputa'ion. 1.-THE testimony of the most
respectable citizens of Richmond and Mancb..,.
| was 10 DC believed. the loss on al,
cd al The warehouses was not ~ eaer than nyh, he
expected from the opening and inspecting OF an
large quantiiy that not one cent of the proceeds
OF the waste tobacco had gone into the pockets of
the inspectors; that if any depr eda,ions had hee
committed, they grew out OF circumstances over
when the inspectors had no controul. But The
whole amount OF waste tobacco that had been soji
would not appear unreasonable when reference 90
had to the number Of hogsheads Opened and in
spected nj the warehouses. He had sscerta;na al
mar curing the last year, at Shockca Warebonsc
''z2S hhds ofupiand inspected tobacco had been 20
oPened-4,7ll hhd+ Inspected, and ,97y refused.
making In all, 1907 hhds. Allowing Y lbs. fo,
per nosshead, the amount Of loss which In.
most Intelligent dealers Concurred in renres.n,;,
sunavoidablc, and it would appear that the waste
tobacco sold, exceeded this by but frac,io,
| The number ofhogsheads opened at the same ,vare-
house IN 1923, was 1927, and in 1924. 5000 I,
was to be regretted that tho testimony beCo,. 81.
cohn"'ee had not been reported to the House If
hau' the conduct and character OF the inspector,
"ou.u nave oceh exhibited IN an unexceptionable
point OF view and not be left subject to ,he csI
inferences to be drawn from the report.
| There was part Of the scheme te eybich h. b,d
reference, That had not been brought TO light in
| Inc report lie believed 1t was contempIa,ed 20
ieSisiate me inspectors out OF Office and provide
lot leiT appointment from other parts of the coun
uy the report had not commented on the inspee-
,ions' IN tynchbirg, Petersburg or Norfolk Wby
was tins! Was there abuses in those to,vns
Were their inspectors less liable 10 objection ,bs y
those OF Richmond! He dsclaiIned anv wish 20
cast the least impuation the inspectors NJ those
places, and defended the character of the inspec,o
here at some LENGTH bore the most ample
OF their attention 10 business and most unmpeacba.
Die Characters lie read statement made under
oa'h oy the inspectors oil Sea5rooke's Warehouse.
from which 1t appeared, that the nett income re- ,
ceived by the inspectors for the last wear yas nm
iy Si,I3@,l7, to be divided between them. He
| was solicious that the report should be recomm;,
ted, that tie subject might be placed in such ,oint
OF view as 10 do justice TO the inspectors. if NOT
10 change its principal features.
Mr.. MAY opposed recommitment He was
satisfied that tile Committee could not see the SUBJ
ject in the same point of view with the ,,a,rh.,
from Richmond Mr.. HARVEY They had zone
through the most laborious and unpleasant inve,,i
cation OF weeks, with 20 or 30 witnesses befoYr
! them in single day. They had merely collected
the facts. was in evidence that in one wear abon,
$4,000 pounds OF tobacco had been sold from
SboskG Warehouse in one yeur. Was no, This
100 great an amount! The Committee had stated
that this tobacco had been sold for the bene6, az
the hands; and in the nature of things. trey co,id
not say that the Inspectors had derived no bene6,
from IL. II the House did not concur in the onn-
ION that the inspectors ought TO be appointed Inv
the Executive instead OF by the County Court Of