Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1875-01-15

Charles street, 76 hhds., $500; insured in
the Royal, of London, for S4, 0OO Imperial Of
London, S. 600; Traders, $4,000.
Bonninger Bros, % South Charles street,
200 hhds. valued at SIS, 5000; insured $751; 900
| in National, of Baltimore, and SIS, 1000 in an
other Baltimore company.
| H. Benninghaus & Co., II South Charles ST.,
80 hhds., So 900; insured in the Scottish Com
mercial for So 0OO
L. W. Gunther & Co., Gay street, $500;
| insured in Baltimore Fire.
| f. W. Felgner & Son. 80 and 81 South
Charles street, 50 hhds., SIS, 900 ; no insurance.
| W. H. Moore & Co., No. 10 Camden street,
20 hhds. uninsured.
MArburg Brothers, $4,000; uninsured.
The buildings, valued at 500, 900, are in
sured for about $50, 500, with the walls stand
ing and supposed to be good.
AS to the responsibility of the State for the
tobacco destroyed, the San says:
The State Tobacco Warehouses which were
destroyed by fire on Thursday night contained
on storage considerable quantity of tobacco
belonging to producers, in addition to the stock
! stored in them by tobacco dealers. In many
instances the stock owned by producers con-
stituted the main portion Of their reliance for
subsistence, and the loss will probably OCCASION
much pecuniary distress to them. The disaster
|
the State of Maryland is pecuniarily response
BILE to owners Of the destroyed tobacco. 1t is
contended by some that the policy of establish
ing the Tobacco Warehouses does not show the
State to be in any sense fiduciary in assum-
ing the storage, inspection, and outage of
tobacco; that the warehouses are necessary
incident Of the laws requiring tobacco to be in
spected that the inspection has been deemed q
protection and advantage to the producer as
well as the buyer, and that the State has not
Instituted the Inspection as source of revenue,
the expenses attending it having been average
| ly greater than the receips for storage, outage,
&c. 1t is held, therefore, that the State never
| intended to assume any responsibility for
tobacco while stored for inspection, or awaiting
the owners option to SELL
| The laws Of Maryland in relation to the
warehousing and inspection of tobacco do not
expressly or indirectly indicate any response
billty for safe keeping or against destruction by
hre or otherwise, and a parallel instance Of lack
of fduciarv responsibility is adduced in the
case of imported goods stored in United States
customs storehouses to await inspection and
valuation by customs officers, and which are
frequently stored in bond for long periods,
awaiting the demands of trade or necessities Of
owners before they are withd, avn for sale. The
United States government is in no wise respon-
Slble for loss or damage to such goods.
! Similarly, in the case of the tobacco destroy
ed Thursday night, it is contended that the
State Of Maryland held in the burned ware
houses tobacco which could at any moment have
been withdrawn by its owners on payment of
charges. 1t was kept there for its owners
convenience and at their option Of withdrawal.
And it is further held that if there be any equity
in the case the Legislature can exercise its
benevolence in behalf of the sufferers, such
course, it is stated, having been pursued by
that body on at least one OCCASION when much
tobacco was destroyed in the State warehouses
by the backing up of the tide in the basin.