The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-07-29
'sfaI, forfeit 800 foreyery hundred ghtsof
such t,,bacco. audasproportionate sth, Tor 9

/ 'shaI, forfeit 800 forgyerys hundred Hreighto
such tobacco. andHpro portionatelsuho Ior =
less ouai1titg." a5sx Ea&a .teg +s9s
It will be observed that the penalty is pre-
scribed against "eXporting" or putting sucn
tobacco /" on board of any vessel or boat Tor
that purpose" is very plain that this Is
restriction placed upon The commerce of our
own State. and operates directly against our
own Interests. The law was passed before
the invention of railroads, and when the only
way 20 get tobacco out OF the State was by
q vessels" or "boats." Exporting" is d
term that does not apply to sending any arti-
Gle from one State to another, so that II per-
son in Richmond or Lynchburg has tobacco
which he wishes TO "eXport," and Is unWlii-
ing TO pay the inspection fees OF virginia, ne
has onIy TO ship the tobacco to Baltimore or
New York by rail, and thus avoid their pay
mept But IL is evident that ne is at the same
Time DESTROYING the commerce OF Richmond
and Norfolk. The principle part OF the ex-
port trade of Richmond consists OF TOBACCO,
and our laws are q. sIch q character as 70
cripple aud destroy that.
Br,t the law is unjust and injurious in
another respect. Even admitting That IL Is
right and proper TO inspect tobacco once BE-
fore it is sold 10 our markets, there can GER
taipy be no reason for requiring second
inspection after it has been prepared for
market and put in the best condition for
standing sea voyage. Every one at all &C.
ouainted with the subject knows that it does
jncaIculsble injury to the tobacco. After
any amount of trouble and expense has been
incurred to get the tobacco in proper order
for shipping, In prizing it and mailing IL up
in the hogsheads, 1t does seem to US 10 De
the height of folly to say that it shall then
be taken to warehouse, stripped, and
broken in three places, as the law requires,
especially when we consider that It has
already been inspected once. ...
The first inspection is demanded as pro-
lection to the producer, but as the producer
never exports. it cannot be maintained that
he is interested in the second Inspection.
The export trade is in the hands OF partl-
cular class of shrewd businessmen, who
might very safely be allowed 20 manage their
owl business. Of course the larger pronts
they. make the better prices they can Afford
| to pay the producer; so that 1t IS to the IN
terest of the farmer as well as the shipper
that all unnecessary expenses snoutd 0e re-
moved from the export trade.
| In addition TO all this, the Inspection does
no good after il has been made. Tobacco Is
never sold by the inspectors mark, and, IN
| deed, no attention is ever paid to it. Why,
then, should all this injury and inconve-
nence be imposed upon trade without any
corresponding benefit? Is Virginia in such
hourlshing condition that she can aSord to
cripple, if not destroy, any branch of her
trade? Should she not rather aim to cherish
and build up that trade!
But our article has already exceeded the
length originally assigned to it. We intend
to refer to this subject again, and we hope
that the press Of the State will discuss it
thoroughly before the election, because we
are sati, fled that if it were well understood
there could be no serious objection to the re-
peal Of the obnoxious feature Of the law.
For our own part, we would delight to see
every compulsory inspection law removed
| from our statute-books. They are restrlc-
tious upon trade, and unworthy OF the age
In Which we live.-Lyach1urg Republican.