Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1831-02-17

ltoE IN the article, AMI be obliged o submit TO suc
prices as they may choose to give. Whether such a
situation would b. advanta aOus to them or injurious
leave you To determine
Is the usc Of two brands advantageous 20 Country
m.!lcrs not:
For the same reasons that il Is advantageous 70
Tho CITY milleTs. IT advantageous to th, inllcrs
IN tue Cnun'ry. aud the fact, pr oofto your com
mlttcc (though for souiG. CcountaJc reason with
held from the iInusel that some of thcri REGULARLY
use two brands, proves that II Is 50 consiL red by
some among them. The |. nrEls are Is great 10
them ~ proportion To their operations, and to tho
reputation they have acquired, 10 the CITY nllers
The wheat growers who depend upon the Conn
Try mills TO purchase or grind their crops wall fad
themselves vefy awkwagIy situated. IT, in consc-
quence II any law yon pass, they shall be deprived
OF narsc FOR their inferior wheat, or of the accom-
mnCA'ion d! having it grougd. II the Country mil.
Ter mas ganed reputation for good -four,
ne cannot be- expected To hazard 1t for the
SAKE Of the profits 10 be made. by purcha.
sng or grinding On toll bad crop OF wheat.
lie must refuse TO put his brand on il. and
no, being n liberty to use another, the whca,
grover must seek market whero lac can,
or lose his crop altogether which last distant paris
OF the country NIGH, often Of necessity be the case
In a bad what yea the situation of many might By
This propose! law be rendered trUy Distressing.
The winding up argument of the opponents OF
the use OF two brands is not very important eXcept
to the Inspector and law makers. IL is That The
allowance OF two brands supercedcs the necessity OF
Inspection well is uses The danger of such
state of things is not very imminent The In
spcciur Will sometimes catch tho most watclru mil
Ter nlppu5 His supervision will always DO ncccs
saty as long u poor human nature Is liable 70 car
etbe! Intentionally or otherwise.
But that preferred meeting the arguments Of
the committee against the use Of Two brands and
showing their fu;Il,ty, might have saved myself the
trouble Of writing and you the iatigue OF reading
inc preceding remarks upon that part of their re-
port. There Is one argument agans: any law res
tfictinG the m.,.ars 10 the use ut ono brand, more
c'gcnt than all the rest. and that is, HGt you IN
pass no h:'c that prcyept NenI from using t.g3
brands if they kiat proper. | shall sunpo5,, n
case for The sake OF illustrations boat or w?oron
arrives in Redmond with dpur from an 10 country
MILL one half has on il one brand mark and the OF Il.
or halt another, the Inspector is called 70 examine
~ how Is he 10 know whether the -four las or has
not on 1t the brand mari! of the "mlll in which, q,
miller by whom the flour was manufactured" He
may enquire of those who ought to know, and with
such answers as thcy pleased, find il TO their
interest 10 give, he must be satisfied. II, has no
right To question their necessity. The occupants and
owners OF mills arc continually changing and they
may and do change the names other mills and their
dlstlnG gushing brund marks. Thus every year and
almost every day, flour with brand marks is pre-
scented to tho Inspector. II he is 10 be the officer
on whom 1t shat! deYOice TO this proposed law ey
cc"'cd, he Will have duty perform more arluous
than ATTY other officer of the Commonwealth and the
evident lmpIssIbili.y of the execution Will fully ius-
ll!y hun IN not attempting il.
And gentlemen or the Wing, ! take nv
leave. To you ! feel particularly Indebted for The
promptncss with which you have inserted these
hasty remarks IN your truly valuable paper l
trust that oil Editors who have given circulation IN
their papers. 10 the report of the Committee of
culture aud Manufactures, will feel it their duty to
publish ell the numbers Of these structures and coun-
teyact in some measure the injurious effects which
that report Is calculated to have some individuals
of this community. OBSERVER