Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1856-02-01
THE INSPECTION LAWS.

State. Inc opposition 10 tnese laws 10 '' ~ "
compromising, although confined to very small
number of persons whose hostility is, no DOUBT the
result of honest although, we have every reason 10
believe, erroneous prejudice There was 10 us sone'
thing so startling and dangerous, in the very idea OF
repeains our good old inspection laws, that we were,
at rst like our neighbor of the Eramner, disposed
to treat the matter adangerous joke But elearn
that several leading Know. Nothing members OF the
House of Delegates, and several gentlemen, who are
neither Know Nothings legislators, are extremely
active in their hostility to these laws. We are' how
ever, decidedly of the opinion, that the farmers as
bodv do not wish the repeal Of these venerable laws,
and that they have in no instance a, body, mani
tes,ed the slightest opposition to the inspection of
aorr fish. &c. Certainly, since the commencement
Of the present war upon the inspection laws, they
have had ample time to state their objections, and to
ius,ruct their delegates, if disposed; but we have
not heard Of the least complaint from the country
upon the subject
The proposition to repeal the inspection laws oi
Virginia deserves the most careful consideration OF
the legislature. 1t is we believe proposition raught
with mischief the agrcu!tursts OF the State as we
shall hereafter attempt to show The prncipa ihspec
ton laws Of this State have been in force for h"n
ded and ten years and now have for the first time,
a proposition to repeal them A blow has been aimed
at the whole system of inspections, but we select the
single article of -four for the present editorial In
l745 an act was passed providing that all -four in
tended for expectation should be first inspected and
marked by an inspector. Since that date there have
been various notifications and amendments OF the
inspection laws, all aiming to make the compulsory
feature more stringent and imperative. but none seek
ing TO diminish the value of the inspection The tacit
recognition of the value OF the inspection OF Hour Tor
one hundred and ten years by Colonial BurSesses as
we'll as every State Legislature affords the most satis
factory evidence Of the law having worked well du-
ring that long period of time. That from Hi5 to
1854 there should have been no attempt made to re-
peal these laws affords the most conclusive proof that
they must have given entire satisfaction to all classes
Of citizens There is certainly no evidences OF the
farmers having urged their modification repeal.
The delegate from Lynchburg, Mr.. DEASE, whose
orthodoxy as Know. Nothing cheerfuly endorse,
seeks abolish the compulsory feature of the present
law and to leave the inspection of -four optional with
the exporter In other words, he seeks to destroy
the only valuable feature Of the present inspection
| law to -four.
The proposition is utterly at with the conser
vatve character Of legislation upon this subject
for the last hundred years. After forty years trial
the compulsory feature deemed important, and as
it had not proved sufficiently stringent the Legisla
ture of Virginia, in 1884, sets forth its views upon the
subject in the following preamble:
"Whereas, the law ROW in force for the inspection
OF Hour Is found insufficient for giving due encour.
agement to valuable branch Of our commerce in
guarding against abuse; and as sound policy requires
that -four trade should be put upon respectable
footing, which can only be dooe by establishing such
regulations as will prevent the manufacturer from
bringing to market any -four that will not pass the
public inspections with credit entitle the merchant
to preference in every foreign market &c.
And then follows the act concerning tho stringoncy
Of the compulsory feature.
Twenty-eisht years later, in 1919, the compulsory
feature of the inspection Of flour was retained when
the thorough and important revisal Of that year was
| made.
After the lapse Of thirty years, the legislature in
1919 49reained the compulsory feature which was gen
orally admitted to be e1pedient" See report, page
4S9. Here we have the deliberate action of our
legislature intervals Of from twenty to forty years,
and always in favor Of the compulsory FEATURE
We have, to avoid embarrassment. selected -four
but the argument applies with much greater force IN
favor of the recent laws for the compulsory in
specton of fish, guano, &c.,
1t is singular that intelligent men like Col. Boudu
rant and Mr.. Deane, cannot perceive that if the COM
pulsory feature Of the present inspection laws is
stricken out, the whole system becomes at once
valueless and of no manner of account.
The independence Of the inspector. his elevation
above the influences and temptations of office, are the
great protectives and safeguard Of the whole system
To make the inspection Of -four voluntary would be to
mako the inspector the servile tool Of the manufacu
rer, to destroy that incentive to honesty which the
compulsory feature guarantees. His fees-his Eve-
hood-his emoluments would depend upon the pa
tronage of the parties who would be interested in
having their -four branded as high possible. The
inspector who would pander to this interest would
secure the largest amount Of patronage If the in
spector a man of ofncorruptible honesty, be would
have no flour to inspect; for if he proverbal for
condemning -four, he would be Stunned if he were
infected with some dangerous disease.
This would be the case if there were several in.
spectors. Theeaects would be the same, all ntents
and purposes if there but inspector In each
of the principal cities as there is at present.
If the inspector was faithful in the discharge of s
duties all who were offended by his decisions would
discontinue the practice of having their -four inspect
ed, and the utility Of the office would THIS be do
stroyed. If the inspector negligent md fathess
in inspecting hour-mnrking inferior flour too high,
to secure the good will of his patrons-the standing
of our -four would fall and Virginia flour would no
longe~ be regarded the best in the United States
1t would be far better to repeal the inspection laws
than to emasculate theIn as Mr.. Deane proposes to
do 1t would be far better to declare to the world
that we no longer inspect four than to send forth
-four some OF which has been inspected and some
not. This would bring all the flour Of the State into
disrepute. Indeed the proposition OF Mr. Deane may
be regarded entering WEDGE to prepare for the
destruction Of the present inspection laws.
The farmers of Virginia are particularly interested
in the maintenance of all Of the present inspection
laws, and especially that which relates to Hour
Wheat is now the great staple Of Virginia Each
year furnishes gratifying evidence Of tire increase OF
this valuable agricultural product. Our farmers in
every portion Of the State abandoning the extern
',Ss cultivation Of corn and saSd line, in order that
.'y may enlarge the area to bs~seSded in wheat
''naeiy' the reputation Of Virginia -four is 80 do.
''''uy nigh, that it commands higher price in al
~ "'N 'Ne'' OF the world than the -four of any other
'' ''sncs our millcrs pay higher prices than can
gehefaiy Dc commanded elsewhere. What rational
ooecnon can DO urged against the inspection Of -four
when 1t IS known 10 all the world that tho Virg,nia
inspectors mark is at present an eerent i, the vaue
OF our hour' How can the farmers possibly suffer
from the present system7 They do not nav the tax
of one cent per barrel, which is now paid to the in
spector of four That slight tax comes on, of other
pockets, and is not felt by the miller The farmer is
especially interested that the inspector should be n
sworn officer of the State independent and frce to
discharge the duties of his Office firmly and oonscien.
tousy, c,khout the kemnkok,os Of poiyniorv ;,s,..