Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1881-02-11
]DortG oboffa Gimes
PORT TOBACCO:
Friday Morning, February 18th, 1881
Tobacco nspectiOn.


Friday Morning, February 18th, 1881.
Tobacco Inspection.
The necessity of some system of inter-
vention between the producer and manu-
facturer of tobacco, for the purpose OF as
certaining and certifying the quality and
condition of the bslks in which it goes to
market, is so manifest as hardly to admit
Of any argument. We hear it frequently
said, however, by persons otherwise vel
informed, that it is a great outrage that
the sale of tobacco, like that of all other
commodities, should not be private
transaction between buyer and seller, un
trammelled by any outside Intervention
The necessity of the inspection Of this pro
duct by some reliable Intermediary au-
thority results from the great number OF
its producers and the doubtful response
bility OF many of them. A hogshead OF
sugar is sold by producer or dealer 81
known responsibility according to sam
Piles which he exhibits as representing tn.
bulk of the hogshead, and, if it should
be found upon opening it that the sam
pie did not fairly represent the bulk, the
buyer would have a right of action
against the seller for the difference in
value between the bulk and the sample.
knowing this, and the responsibility OF
the seller, he, of course, readily buys upon
the samples exhibited without the inspsc-
ton or certificate OF any third party. So
of all other commodities tobacco ex-
cepted), that are sold in bulks. But il
this rule were applied to transactions in
tobacco, none but those Of known respol-
sibility would be able to find any sale for
their crops. That the same rules that reg
ulate the sale of other commodities cannot
be applied to tobacco is, therefore, mani
fest, and that system Of inspection by
reliable Intermediary authority is neces-
sary is equally plain. This has been
uniformly experienced by growers Of to-
bacco in other States, and il conceded by
Ill who have engaged in public discus
sion of this question.
1t being conceded then that some
Intermediary inspection is necessary, the
question is to whom can this be best in
trusted in order to prevent collision and
discrimination, and afford equal protec-
tion to the producer and manufactured
Those who now seek to procure the alb
clifton Of the present system of tobacco
inspection in Maryland, Lase their actions
upon two assumptions, viz: 1st-That the
compulsory feature of the State inspection
laws is odius in the extreme and incon-
sistent with the rights Of freemen, and,
2nd-That the inspections of the State
agents are SO badly performed As to injure
the sale of the Maryland product. They
contend that this inspection should be
turned over 20 private wareheussmen or
corporations, whose inspections, they say,
would be more reliable and, by increasing
the demand, enhance the value Of our to-
bacco.
Let us examine these in their order, and
first let US Us see wherein the odiousnsss
of the compulsory feature of our inspec-
ton system consists. By . review of the
legislation of Maryland upon this ques-
tion, which We made in these columns
ssme weeks ago, it appeared that the
State has, at the instance of the tobacco
growers, assumed, from its earliest history
20 the present day, to intervene between
the producer and dealer in this product
by its duly appointed and qualifled agents
for the purpose of this inspection. 1t ap-
peared also from that review, that in the
year 1925, at the instance and with the
concurrence of the tobacco growers of the
State, the present capacious tobacco ware
houses in Baltimore city were purchased
by the State government as permanent
provision for such inspection. This pur-
chase was made upon the express contract
then entered into by the tobacco growers,
speaking through their representatives,.
with the State, that all tobacco grown in
the State was to be shipped to these ware
houses for inspection, to be there subjscted
to proper charge the proceeds Of which
would ultimately discharge the indebted
ness assumed by the State for the pur-
chase of this property.
This compulsory feature of the law
would appear, therefore, to be clearly a
self imposed compulsion, and one which
was necessary to the fulfillment of con-
tract duly entered into by the tobacco
growers with the State government. The
first assumption therefore, does not ap-
pear to have any rational or just founda-
ton.
The contract thus entered into with The
State has, however, been discharged, Is
the Indebtedness incurred in the purchase
of the warehouse property has been fully
cancelled. 1t would seem, therefore, that
the tobacco growers are now in q si.ua-
ton to maturely consider the question IS
to whether it is to their interest to con-
tinue longer to invoke the aid of the State
government for the purpose of regulating
the tobacco trade, or whether they will
now demand repeal or essential modif-
cation OF the inspection laws, and inaus-
urate system of private inspections. In
considering question which has such
direct and important bearing upon their
material interests, it is very desirable that
they look solely at the merits Of the ques-
ton, and guard carefully against being
influenced in their judgement by the in
terested opinions OF enterprising private
narnoratiana schamino Rennhlicana or