Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-06-04
THE TOBACCO QUESTION.

An article on this ~sutj-ct appears in the CONNER
cial column Of the "Whis" of yesterday. The
Wing differs from VA in opinion as 20 the probable
effect of the institution "f IA tobacco exchange. We
have ~purposely abstained from a discussion OF the
expedieucy of this institution, simply because we
have not believed that it will operate to diminish the
amour; Of Gales by inspectors. The "Whig' sup
poses that the selling of tobacco will thereby b.
transferred almost entirely 10 the exchange, leaving
the inspectors exclusively employed with the business
OF Inspection. We can only say that # the latter re-
suit ls to be effected, we sincerely regret the erection
of the exchange, and would warn the planters to
protect their own interests against an eventually
which would place them at the mercy Of the COM
mission merchants.
Under the supposition that the "Whig" is correct
IN its surmise, it ID easy to follow up the consequences
of the new arrangement.
The tobacco exchange is necessarily under the
control of the commission merchants. They are most
deeply interested in its maintenance; they contribute
the greater amount TO lis support; they occupy its
stalls for the exhibition OF samples; they prescribe its
regulations and cleo, lis supervisors aud employees.
II they sha'l succeed in preventing sa,es by inspec.
Tors, they will themselves mouupoiize tho Sales OF
;ohsccoon commission. Tins will necessarily even
tuate III the increase ot the inspection fees. We
know that the "Whig" is mistaken in supposin g that
these fees alone are sufficient to furnish u suitable
income TO the inspectors. They scarcely remunera'e
the inspectors for the necessary outlay inciden: TO III.
spection. The entire nett income of the Inspector
arises from the small commission he receives on sales.
The system Of inspection is instituted by law for the
b-net, OF the planter; and, "a it now exists, depends
for lts continued maintenance upon ihe volup,orv n
consignment extended by the planter. The fee of
fifty cents is really inadequate tor the storage, un
~cooperius and re-coopering OF a ~hogshead OF tobacco.
Thus, ii the sales are taken from the inspectors. the
inspection fee must be increased. This increase is,
We hear, generally advocated by the commission
merchants, SOME of whom propose to raise the inspec.
ton fee To one dollar. Should this increase be made
by Legislative authority, i, will doubtless be coupled
with a prohibition oi further sales by inspectors. So
much for the inspectors.
The planter will then pay, first, one dollar to the
Inspector, and then AT least An average of three dol
lars To the commission merchant four dollars in
stead of 81 50-an increase Of at leas, 81 30 csn,s IN
each ~hogshesd of tobacco sent to market. The com.
mission merchant must then OUT sell the inspector ty
this amount per Observation-Disclosures, the plant.c
cutters a dead loss by reason Of tn. new arrange
Iueut. Now we have no guaranty whatever that tn,
commission merchant can sell 10 better advantage
,hsn can the inspector.
Blu; the mater does 10, end here. Let the ssi-s
oy inspecsors be prohibited, and the planter will lie
placed entirely at the mercy of the commission mr.
chant, who may them and probably will eventual y
charge i've INSTEAD ol two and a bali per cent. AZ
matters are now arranged, it is true that the farmer
may sell his own tobacco at the exchange, for The
cost OF only l2i cents per ~hosshead paid TO the aus
,ioneer. But the trouble and expense which he
would ordinarily incur in doing go, would necessa
riiy raise the tax TO the full amount of the fees o
commission merchant and inspector combined. BIZ,
even if there isa questionable advantage furnished to