Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1830-05-14
COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr.. Editor-The remarks of "Exus," in your
paper Of Yesterday, preceded by summary, as
he is pleased to term it, excited, in no small de-
gree, my surprise, nay, even astOnishment.
feel almost willing to forgive him for his legal
Neutrality-suspicious.. on account of the decided turn
he so clearly manfests for proceedings IN equity.
His interrOgatories appear intended to "purge
our cOnsciences." and to settle the matter Just as
he wishes. - provided aIways, and on these con-
ditions," that they meet with suitable replies. 1t
is exceedingly diSasreeable to be obliged to give
am unpleasing answer to a gentleman who ques-
tons like the Roman Punufi, for the sole pur-
pose of convicting the respondent out OF his ow n
mouth.
He asks, g Does the law Of Congress Of May,
1924. authorize the Common Council of Alexan-
dria -. repeal the Virginia law Of December,
1892, so far as to prohibit Flour inspected in
Vir2iail, and brought to Alexandria, from being
exported without re-iuspecdon?" The power
entrusted to the Corporation by this act, may be
best inferred from the law of the Corporation
founded uponit The Common Council, in July,
1924. passed law regulating the expectation,
and, in the 14th .eclion, declare it, IN positive
terms, to be unlawful to export, or attempt to ex-
port, Flour, in casks, not inspected and branded
according to this law. Certainly the act of Con-
gress granting this power to the Corporation, and
the law of the Corporation putting in force the
power granted, were either useless altogether, or
intended to repeal so much Of the Virginia law
as was contrary to them. If Flour is inspected
in Fredericksburg, and brought here and stored.
and, in my opinion, - Exus" institutes very
refined distinction between Flour OH board car
rier vessel and Flour in store where it is intend
ed in both cases, to be shipped,-it it not COM
pecut for the Common Council to order a REIN
spcction, under the act Of Congress of 1S24?-
Did not the law Of the Corporation, Of which
law the l4th section Jas "Exus'' himself allows
is the only portion applicable to the present case,
put ali end TO the Virginia act of 1899; and. with
that act, did not The right to ship Flour which had
been inspected in Virginia without re-inspection,
al the option OF the Council, also end.
AS to the act Of Congress, exempting from re-
inspection in one port Of the District articles al
ready inspected in another port Of the same Dis
trict, this will have nothing to do with the pre-
sent case until we are shewn that the District of
Columbia embraces Fredericksburg.
''Exus" cannot pretend TO consider the load
Ing of craft at Fredericksburg, for the purpose
of bringing Flour here for expectation, as ship
ment.
Does it make any difference whether the Flour
be brought in wagon, from Fredericksburg, or
in carrier vessel.-ihe right Of inspection is
not dependant on the manner in which the Flour
is brought to the shipping port, but in the actual
shipment, and where the shipment takes place.
there, too, resides the right of inspection exer-
cised according to the law regulating it.
The law Of the Corporation, passed in 1924,
relates to the expectation, and to that alone; 1t
has no reference to any previous steps in the al
fair. but says it shall not be lawful to export
from the Town or Port of Alexandria Flour IN
casks not inspected and branded according to this
Law. The expectation, therefore, is the point on
which the law acts.
Are the duties on imports collected when thew
are brought coastwise by carrier vessels, or is
not the importation complete when the goods are
landed from the importing vessels? In the same
manner, is the expectation begun until the vessel
exporting has received the articles to be export
ets The bringing of the Flour in question.
therefore, from Fredericksburg here, was no ex-
PortatiOn; and, as the expiration only began
here, here, too, should the law regulating that
expectation have commenced It's influence.
-Nay Is. Z.