Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-05-28
THE TOBACCO QUESTION.


THE TOBACCO QUESTION.
We do not propose to enter upon discussion o
the eIpediency Of erecting a tobacco exchange at
Richmond. Whatever may be the best or the most
prevalent opinion on this subect, it is undenable
that any class OF merchants engaged in the trade
have perfect right to decide this for themselves and
to make any arrangement which will best serve their
own interests and convenience.
But we take occasion 10 express the hope that this
establishment of central depot for public and pr
vate sses will not result in combination for the
overthrow OF the present system Of auction sales by
the tobacco inspectors This latter eystem is favor
able to the planting interest," and necessary, as We
believe, to the maintenance of an efficient system Of
tobacco inspection, that any nsw arrangement which
should directly or indirectly effect revolution in this
respect promises to add new burdens and incon
venences incorporated by any commensurate
advantages
The inspection law and the practice underit furnish
the cheapest and best accommodation which could be
devised for the benefit of the planting interest, and
secure to the manufacturer and consumer eonse
quent advantages which they could not otherwise OBJ
tain.
The planter has his tobacco stored, insured, In
spected and sold for the small total of 50 per
hogshead-a sum less than commensurate with the
increase of mercantile value resulting from the in
spection alone. Instead of being subjected to deduc
tion from the price of the tobacco the planter actually
receives an increased price.
This increase of price also results TO the interest Of
the manufacturer, and the consumer who finally pays
it, is amply recompsnsed by the guaranty afforded of
the quality of the article which he purchases
Here we may consider some objections which have
been made 10 the practice of Gales by inspectors. In
the preamble of set of resolutions passed by a
meeting of tobacco merchants, on the 18th June
1857, it was urged that "when inspectors, by their
acts, become commission merchants, by soliciting
consgnments and making advances on the same, they
do violate the spirit if not the letter, Of the inspeo
ton laws of the State" This question can be easiest
decided by direct reference to the section Of the
Code here referred to:
"Chapter 81, section 4l:-If any inspector shall
directly or indirectly buy, or sell, stem or manufac
ture any tobacco inspected at his warehouse (other
than tobacco grown Oh his own plantaton,) be shall
forfeit ten dollars for every hundred pounds Of obac
90 80 bought, cold, stemmed or manufactured. But
this section shall not prohibit any Inspector from
acting as crier agent for any Ozone, in selling
tobacco by auction at has tcarehouse."
Nothing could be clearer than the meaning of these
provisous the inspector shall not buy sell his
accounts but he is especially authorized to sell as
agent for any owner-provided only that he shall sell
at auction and at bis own warehouse.
These precautions are wisely taken. To permit the
inspector TO become himself a tobacco dealer would
be to offer inducements for fraudulent inspection. 10
permit him to sell elsewhere than at his warehouse,
would induce him to neglect the business OF inspec-
ton. To permit him to sell, by private sale would
soon convert him into "middle.man" employed both
by buyer and seller aud would open the door TO all the
fraud and oolusion Of which this middling system is 90
notoriously susceptible With all these safeguards to
protect both buyer and seller, the State furnishes
place of sale, where the buyer can examine the to
bacco in bulk, without trusting to hap hazard pur
chases by ssmplss-and manner Of sale by which
the eeller without expense to the State, injury to
the purchaser, pays mere nominal commission TO
the sale agent. Really, we cannot imagine system
better adapted TO the interests Of all parties.
But the came preamble to which we have referred.
insists that the inspector, by becoming the agent OF
the seller will be induced to ndulgein partial mode
of inspection unduy favorable to the interests of the
planter. Let US see whether such danger really e1-
sts In the first place. the inspector does not sell for
per centage. He has fixed commission of one dol.
lar per hogshead. Hence he has 20. toe induoement
which an ordinary commission merchant would have,
to place an exorbitant valuation OF price or Of quail
ty on the tobacco which he inspects and sells. More
over he has scarcely opportunity to exercise such
parality and it would inevitably subject him to too
great a risk for the mere chance of bsetsning the
of h;st tnho hu saia nf ita
which constitutes the only means by whi-h he could
hope to secure profit by an official misdemeanor.
The tobacco which he inspects ls open to the exam
nation of the buyers who can at any time enter q
complaint against him, and any grave offence Of the
sort would involve tAs loss of bis office and the for
feiture of his bond.
This also calls to mind another important and lsu
dable feature Of the present system. The planter
who entrusts the sale of bis tobacco to Inspector
ncurs no such risk necessarily occurs on the en-
ployment of commission merchant. Any failure to
account fully for moneys received, or which ought to
be received would lose the inspector his Office and
forfeit his bond. Under these circumstances, the
planter scarcely ncurs any rick whatever Of loss by
the fraud or insolvency of bis agent.
1t has also been urged that the present custom Of
the inspectors Of tobacco of Richmond Of breaking
on the same day. obliges many buyers to purchase by
sample, since they cannot be present on the same
dsy at the four warehouses. This inconvenience
would by no means be obviated by the transfer Of
sales from the inspectors to commission merchants.
But ss II seems to us, this creates serious inconve
niepce to the tobacco trade and one which should be
reformed by the proper authority. The previous
CUSTOM as We are informed required that the nspec
tors should break on different days. We know Of
no reason why the old System should not be re estsb
ished and it is certainly due to the buyers, and not
not less desirable for the planters, that the former
should have ample opportunity to examine the to-.
bacco in bulk.
Other objections have been brought forward against
the sales by inspectors but all which have met our
notice are based upon some real or supposed abuse,
by no means necessarily connected with the system,
and all of which easily susceptible Of remedy. at
the instance of any complainant who will take the
trouble to make formal application in the right quar-
ter.
Before We dismiss this subject, it will be we'll 10
review the probable effects Of any successful attempt
to prevent public sales by inspectors. This would
necessarily give place to asystem of public private
s.lee at the option of the commission merchants who
would reap the benefit Of the change. The probable
commission charged would be about p per cent. on
an average of at least % per hogshead. Thus the
cost to the planter would be at once tripled.
The number of private sales would be largely in
creased, and many 'middle men" would spring up
levyng ta1 both on buyers and sellers, and thus the
interests Of neither principal in the transaction would
be identified with that Of his agent Larger profit.
would result to agents. aud the consumer would pay
higher price, while the nett profits Of the producer
instead Of being enhanced thereby, would be necessa
rIy diminished. The planter would no longer have
an official check on the dealings Of dishonest agent
and the manufacturer and shipper would be frequent
ly obliged to employ an agent interested to purchase
for him at the highest price. However reliable might