Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1881-03-11
Tobacco Inspection.

APONSy 10 our EcaueTS lOT continuing 10
discuss, within reason able bounds, a ques
ton in which nearly all Of them are so di-
rectly concerned, and in which all whom
We have seen personally manifest so much
interest. Nor do we deem it necessary to
explain that, in discussing = question of
50 much importance to our people, we
have net been Influenced by the slightest
desire to pose before the public in the at
titude of controvsrsislist" with anyone
we admit, however, that If We had any
such ambition, the idea of being thus as
ISOLATED, even in SO distant and antagon-
istic = way, with ono whom the public has
always recognized as SO great and good \
man az the editor Of the Independent. would
be hard to resist,
As is apparent on all sides, extensive
combinations have been formed for the
purpose of procuring at the hands of the
next Legislature = repeal of the existing
tobacco inspection laws Of the State, and
. total abolition of the State system Of in
spection. Those who are chiefly support
ing this movement appear to be, first. the
European exporters OF tobacco and their
agents in Baltimore; second, the B. & o.
r. R. company, who are owners Of rival
warehouses at Locust Point near Baltimore.
third, the followers of Gov Hamilton.
sometimes styled "anti-ring Democrats;
and fourth, the Republicans OF the State.
All OF the different branches of this oppo-
sition calm 10 be actuated 10y the same
motive-a desire 10 secure fair and relia-
BILE inspections of this produc'.
Without stopping at this point to ex-
anime the real motives by which in our
Judgment most Of those who oppose the
State system are actuaied, we will censld-
er briefly the evil complained Of and the
best manner of remedyinG it. tits claim
ed BY the exporters that the samples fur
nished at the State warehouses have no
currency in any of the markets of the world
and that foreign dealers, who undertake
to sell by the samples here furnished, are
- frequently subjected to rsclama'iens for
non correspondence between samples and
hllks that they are very cautious ahou.
handling the Maryland tobacco a. al,
which serves to greatly impair the demand
for our production. From the testimony
they have adduc.d in support OF this
charge, there does appear to be SEINE mun-
div admitted that the tobacco growers
are, equally With the exporters, interested
in securing fairness and efficiency in the
inspection that places their tobacco upon
the market, in order that the samples ex-
hibited may be relied upon as fairly re-
presenting the contents Of the casks But
dses the remedy to this evil involve the
abolition Of the State supervision Of the
tobacco inspection. ~ con:ended for 10y
the exporters We certainly think not.
The conduct Of tLs exporters in thi,
matter, and the nature Of their hostility to
the State system of inspection, hiss eIci'-
ed among the more sagacious uf the plant,
ers a grave suspicion that their real mo-
tive in raising this sudden ou,cry agains,
the State Inspections, which have existed
so long. 10 not To secure reliability 10 the
inspections, but to get rid Of the supsrri-
sion OF the State in this matter. and the
protection to the planter it sfor,ia IL
there any possib,s rs..na hT ths inspec
tisls Of the State'ssvorn agent should not
be A. fair and ~ sfficisn, - thoss OF pri-
vate iuspeetorsi None, certainly thu, We
can see The salary OF s., soo--or even il
reduced to &l.5Oo-paid by the state win
certainly secure the services Of sntirsl,
competent inspectors, and il the Governor
fails to appsia, such men he sions 10 -
blame, certainly not the system.
Efficient men having been secured, Is i,
probable that the sanction ofthe oath the,
are required By the State system to take
for the impartial dischargs Of their duty,
will render their inspections less fair and
impartial; or the fact that they receive =
fixed salary and are prohibited from re-
ceivinE any further pay from any ssu,cs
tend to influence them one way or the
stheri Does the penal bond Of $3o,Oo
which each OF the State inspectors 10 re
quired to give for the proper performance
h,,,, t>as =
to parties aggrieved by his nnfeasancs
than . private inspector would be The
exporters have unit recently pretended to
believe that there was no responsibility on
the part OF the state inspectors for the bad
performance of their duties, aad. under
prstence OF this belief. recently addressed
. letter to Gov. Hamiltsn upon the sub
jec, His sxce.lency wound up long let
ter in reply by Informing them that the
only remedy against them for bad perform
ance Of their duty would be by action 1t
law upon their bonds; just about the SANE
remedy, We presume, that would have to
be resor ed to against = private inspector
unless he voluntarily funded ever. Their
would seem therefore to be Ne possible
reason Why the interests Of exporters and
manufacturers should not be A. thorough
ly protected by the State inspections As 10y
private Inspections.
There are, sn the other hand. certain
elements of necessary protection to the in.
terssts of the planter found in the Sta'e
system, which would not be realized in .
system Of private inspection, for which
reasons the planters, though they may con-
sent to any proper notifications of the in
spection system to increase its efficiency
and economy, ought to insist on contin-
ued inspection by the States agents in
the warehouses the planters have paid for.