The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-05-23
The Tobacco No-Laws.

tS,ns the following editorial:
We are afraid that Judge Guigon's re-
cent decision OF the tobacco question was
NOT characterized by that judicial calmaess
and research which the opening remarks OIL
his opinion seemed to imply or the import
ance OF the subject demanded. HIS Honor
seems 70 have overlooked an act approved
Anril 4. 1877, which has an important oea,-
inr ON the subject, and neglect OF "ni ~.
NAV involve tobacco-dealers In trouoie. vi
co,irsc the opinion was based upon tee nc"
insnecfion.law, and to that extent Is e9l-
rect The failure to refer to this act IN uc,
Gliding the case Of John Booker, cnatsen a
with violating the fourteenth sect.on Vi s"o
new inspection-law, has, however, . i nmd
guided many persons rs 10 theii NY "n"
risk in this matter. For general '"io'A'"
tion we publish the act in fuil: -. :, r;.-
q" &c. Pp aSee naS ~ anproped April F1S77:
Be IL enacted IN the General Assemoiy. nnas
nns, eommisslon merchant, broker or factor-sena
Ing the Of any planter OF ot -, eh !, is
marked by The owner or his agent, shall &c deemed
sT:i,y Of misdcmeapor, and upon eonvcton 'nereo
OF be fined not less than twenty sn sen,. "''
This &C, shalt be In force from its passage.
From which it would appear that II
Judge GuIGoN had passed upon an act OF
Assembly which was not before him nj all,
his decision would have been characterized
by ..iudiclal calmncss and research ME-.
Booker was charged with violating GER
tain section O! q certain law. and Judge
Gr1GoS was called upon to decide whether
he had done so. The Judge promptly ue-
cidcd that for substantial reasons, when he
gave. Mr.. BOOKER had been guilty OF no Oh
fence, What more could he do!
But the law which the AppeaL following
the Virginia Patron, quotes as something
which had been overlooked by Judge GUl-
Con and others of us here in Richmond Is
in fact the 49th section Of the new mspec-
tion-law as it was printed in the U'Spdtcf'
In April last. No information, however,
was filed charging anybody with having
violated that section, and it followed neceS-
sarily that Judge GUIGoN gave no opinion
as to its effect Ii he had done so, his re-
marks would have been mere o6htcr dtcta.
So much as to Judge GulGoN's opinion
Now. as TO this wonderful law itself. What
virtue is there in it? Who has violated 1t,
or wishes to violate it? 1t is about as harm.
less an act rs we ever read; and it would
puzzle Philadelphia lawyer to tell why
such an act should have been passed twice
once as a law of itself and by itself, and
the second time as part OF the new inspec'
tion-law. But so it is. Governor kEMPEF
approved both bills. And so both are laws
When read carefully, however, the Ia"
given above proves to be OF no consequence
It is in substance that tobacco must be
sent to the ..hoase" to which it Is
"marked": and that if anybody sends II
to any other warehouse, he shall be tined
But as it clearly provides that the owners
agent (thatis, the commission merchanD ma!
"mark'' mot our English, but fhc LcSisla
ture'sl the tobacco to any warehouse, 1t is
easy to perceive that there is nothing IN THIS
law ut all: and so there was no necessity
for filing an information based upon II. and
no reason why Judge GUIGoS should give
an opinion concerning it. The owners
acent-tlle commission merchantmen at
apv time s.mark the owners tobacco :" to y
anv warehouse he desires to ''mark' II
stto.3!! -.....