Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-03-15

the OIL concerning the general elections OF tie com
nonwealth.
The bill providing that the general elections shall
be holden IN the county ard corporation in the
month of April
Mr. Mason of Frederick moved to amend, by re
qnirng the elections TO be holden on the same day
throughout the commonweath--the superior eype-
diency of which, Mr.. Mason explained and support
cd, insisting particularly OH the improper advantage
given to the counties last voting in Distc, elections
by the old mode.
Mr. Leigh admitted the Inconvenience ATTENDING
the present system; but adverted to the motive for
establishing it Chat the white population of the coun
try should not on the day Throughout. the coun-
try, be called from home) unanswerable reason
for continuing it In '9s the Legislature had reour
ed the elections to be held the same day-the
gisature of l30o-l30l-had returned 10 the present
SYSTEM in consequence of the attempt of Gabriel in
September 1900
The historical accuracy of this statement was
vouched by NIcssrs. Miller of Powhutan and Morris,
when after few observations from Mr.. Mason, the
an ,ndment was Dega,ived.
MIR. Moore now moved 10 amend, BY reouirinp the
general elections the Great Districts OF the Valley
and Trans-Alleghany to be held on the s-ae dav
and to give time to draft The amendment the bill at
his instance, was for the present laid on the table
FLOUR INSPECTION.
The bill amending The laws in relation to the in
spection of flour was read third time.
This bill reduces the compensation of tho Flour
Inspector in Richmond from eer,.z-a ha.-el to L.
and prohibits the of than one brand to the
city milcrs under the idea that the brand denotinp
the inferior city mill flour, being the same used on
the upper country flour, gave the latter bad char
acter
The Committee Of Agriculture and manufactures
who reported this bill accompanied by a report in
which it stated that city miller in order to com,
plete cargo, had erased the brand on an inferior
parcel of flour purchased for the OCCASION and sub
stituted his own.
Mr.. Rutherford said that when the subject was for
merly up he unacquainted with the circumstance
of the case, and could therefore defend the CITY
Miller implicated, though from the honorable char
acter of that gentleman he was well assured there
msappreheusion. Mr.. R. then resd f.
statement from VIM Gillatt, Esq. TIE witness
understood by the Committee to have made this
statement when examined by them-alledring that
he had been misunderstood, and referring to the 5th
No. of Observer published in this paper some weeks
ago. for true description of the transaction 1.-THE
transaction thus explained perfectly fair MIR
Chevailie the city miller alluded to-whose high
character well great lberality in the prosccu-
tion Of his business, well known to this cty and
to the farmers of Virgina-rcquired small parcel
of flour 10 complete cargo. He did not erase the
previous brand and substitute his own more celebra
ted brand-but rsground the -four, mixing it with
good wheat and packed it in bal rels; maxine il
in fact, equal to the other portion of the CARO-
Messrs. RIves of Campbell, chairman of the
Committee,) and Hamilton IA member of the Com
mitte,) alledged that the ''erased" had certain
ly been used by one ofthc witnesses before the Com
mlttee, and that the Committee concIrred in under
standing his testimony in the of their report
1.-THE explanation given by Mr.. Rutherfoord ap
peared to give entire satisfaction
The question recurring en- the passage of the BILL
warm discussion ensued, in which Messrs. NJ ler of
Powhatan Wood of Albemarle, and Rives of Camp
bell supported, and Messrs Leigh and Marshall op-
posed the bill
The bill was then passed. ayes 10, noes 81.