Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-02-18

!
iuohcauoh oil such serious charge, is calculated t,
" - .Ii!Ns iidd they fixed upon one, that enc
81 iNTcd, but thcy have left il hang
s over an Tue city niicrs with the solemn word.
II, 'hat " 1t WAS proven" In my first nun
per called Your attention 20 the Injustice done the
cly hiieFS by the Committees, in not su,nmonng
'hen 10 testify N matters where their interests were
80 uecPy oiv.d--elat in this nothing JUS
~ 'sln i0r withholding from the Individual accused
an opportunity Of explaining or defending bis con-
nc. iieo iHcy done -, tiey would not have insert.
4" 'N$ paragraph III their report. Lecyc am IN
ios'rSSiol at ali the important testimony given bairo
TIC committee, aad know IF but one fact in any
Hia'Ae' r2=cin5lmg tins, of which they were inform
a. IL h1t reference to fry barrels cnlv but fbe
Tee hcve stated the particulars c0r1ccii only
"heFe l"y say that it purchased 10 co,0Lste :,
cFF52 ~! The UtAe1 particulars stated are erronn
GUS There was 10 c1nccanent in the transaction
II Ms tnis merchant purchased nf Il city miller
q co IAN Quantity OF his Hour. After 1t was pat on
D"''' II Wa iouna insufficient to fill the vessel Tn,
season For 3aG,ng wh At 10 market W. IL .ly,s
ca ana very little coming III, and the vessel LYING ~
af'ea|y expense ~ "a" river The purchaser and
tAe city miller agreed 20 select some oil the besl ce
try -four they could find hare il sent to tie mill ami
after UIIing II with VIVA: four and whe,t W al
ready there, and thus notwithstanding it, It. ~, Oh,
Ill ne" barrels and III this manner, Tor the acconInJ
caiicn OF the merchant the city miller endcavored
u complete the cargo and dispatch his vessel. After
@'@a deal Of tTOube, tie miller and the merchant
WIN The @-ss'arcc Of o'hcr Judges OF the article
C'd SEC. my o"fFei~ winch we're dealt ii above
by eFa5tng the brand Of the country mill and puttinr
that o: The city mill in its place. This explanation
OF the TRANSACTION, he Committee might have had If
they had asked fiir it way they did no, thev can,
best e%piain / nave been many years Il resident of
Richmond, actively engaged in the hour business
and this IS the only instance of The kind that has
Come 10 my knowledge, or that hear OF, after
sumo enquiry.
All that remains for me nov, is an examination of
the question II large, OF the gond III effects of al
lowing the iA:iicrs TO use Two brands The Commit
tee IL their report have argued the case pro and con
Where tLcy GOT the arg,:,:.i.s Used in its f.vor from,
khow n"'. They state in their Report, or at least
they would lead you IL infer from the manner IN
which It Is wUrdad, that the city mIllers alone are IN
the habit OF using wo brands. They of course ought
to be the best Judges OF its advantages and const
QUenty could have furnished the strongest ARGUMENTS
III favor otte practice But the COMMITTEE for rca-
sons best known TO themselves, did not choose to
give them the opportunity. shall quote the a--u-
ncnS against the practice, III the words OF the Com
nntiee. and they are. am inclined to believe from
the St.nony Thy selected all the arguments that
can be atduced By IFS opponents
" tnaJ pubic pJcy requires that tha character of
an artc!2 undergoing Hub.ic Pccun. should b.,
teb'slcd Jy the judgment Of the public officer that
the advantages OF two brands are more INA rlnary
than real If iary used; mat the privilege is pecu-
LARRY liaO.e to abuse, and must lead such abuses
IS to dci roy their supposed actual advantages;
that all Tie benefits justly to be derived from the
Character - the miller OF mill, viii accrue from the
use OF enc rs well OF bru.ids; that their Z
VantGgcS II any, coniine! TO few faillers in and
near the city, and do not react! he wheat uroy
ers seeking This market; whilst the n; Try extends to
all the ccUAtTy mlers, and to all the wheat growers
that country utlleT3 cannot b. rcasen of their s,,
alton, benefit materially from the use of two brands :
and, IN Tine, that the allowance of two brands suDr
sedes the necessity of Inspections well as its uses
!leSe arc lie argCnen's against the practice btIi il
Is not my intention to combat them seperateiv They
are acre assertions w.-;Ch shall be- met and rei!ted
-hy / IS proving inconies,iLly that tie practice. of
using "" brands is an advantage to the city niers
lad The wheat growers seeking This nlorket. and also
to me country milierS and the wheat growers bv
whom they are supplied. frhe first question is Is
of any advantage to the Fly mllcrs to allow them
ia use cwo bTandsonr for their superior AMI another
Tor their interior Hour The proof IN the affirmative
il iii hand. They arc the hest judges OF their own
interest. In"y submit To q positive loss on every
occas,ol which they Use the inferior brand, for
t!-cy we'll aware that if the Hour TINS branded
had their S"nrTioT brand e. il would rooo, rmnr..
ready sale. and command higher price. What bet,
ter proc! can be addnccd, that the city Incrs con
slider 1t ultimately 20 their interest 10 use the TWO
brands J The experience Of years, has convinced
Them Tat 1t Is to their advantage, and when they
themselves convinced of the advantages who have
the 6cst and indeed the only opportunity OF iadrn,r
Is u not presumption IN any individual unacGua!mtCd
with heir concerns, and without the means OF form
M correct opinion, 10 say that it is not? | shall
l--tance one o.! tine advantages derived by CITY mil
Ter from the Of two brands, and the SAM, ma
accrue To any other city or country miller, whose
flour Ia in high fepuie abroad 1t IS the prevention
Y
ecuilon, and more liable - detection and exposure
iSs is not imaginary diug"r Tie brand of one
OF our city mjIsrs has been cnuutcr!cited and car
20 Of the counterfeit shipped from Northern Port
to market where that brand stood in 10 hirlrst
estimation Il 1t generally known that thu, mil
Ter was IN tac habit oi putting his superior brand
upon all Erad,sy Of ms 5ur, its Appearance on an IN
teror article would excite surprise nor eve rise
to Gug enquiry, and consequently a fraud Of that
description would DC less Liable 20 detection Be
sides putting the superior brand upon an inferior or
';ce, offers JaciItcs to the knavlsh for practclpc
such frauds, which, Judging from experience y,oul}
be greodily caught If the most n,atrrial brands
already inc barrels, VIZ. the superior brand or
the miller and the Inspectors brand Richmond
The remainder OF the operation is easy, odd supgr,
TO The word tuc, under the name Of the, CITY and
ths Hour is ready for any market. The CONSEQUENT
COS Ct such practice, even to Il limited a,,tsnt n
any miller, are intellectually injurious His brand &c
40 lcnger a guarantee for the quality Of his flour
is the use Of two brands by the Richmond rpl'iers
an advantage or IN injury to the wheat orovers
seeking this market? Suppose Vol determine TO !,
NIT them 80 one BRAND, as the Committee recon-
mend and they in consequence thereof determine 10
purchase from the wheat growers only thgr very
best wheat, and 10 reject all their Inferior Tie We.
ry idea OF such consequence must deter YOU from
p FrF.f rv nv