Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1881-03-25
The Compulsory Feature.


the Independents hostility to the State to-
bacco inspection system is limited to the
compulsory feature of the laws, and there
fore that it is in full accord with the TIhEs
upon this question after all. We learn
this from its last issue, in which 1t 50 states.
Previously We had thought differently
From our neighbours editorials Of the last
few months we had been unable to draw
any other conclusion than that our con-
temporary was advocating the demand.
of the incorporating enemies Of the
State system who contend for = total abol.
ition Of this system Of protection to the
interests Of the planter. When, some month
ago, our neighbor regretted that the Court
OF Appeals could not "see its way clear TO
be instrumental by its decision in abolish
ing the present system;" and, . few weeks
later, when it denounced the inspection
laws ~ bad in theory, because they, in its
judgment, pertook Of the nature Of obnoI-
ious paterual protection to the Planters
whom our nsighbor thought ought to Be
able to protect Themselves; and when .
week later, it devoted = column leader to
the conteasisn that no inspection At all
vas necessary in the case Of tobacco, any
more than in that ofcorn, wheat and other
commodities, We certainly thought that
our neighbor was combating the whole
system. Our neighber says in its last 10
sue, however, that to "dispense with the
compulsory feature and make The ware
houses self-supporting" is exactly what it
is noe contending for, and that therefore,
- the TINES admits the compulsory fea-
ture may be dispensed viii, We are both
now in accord on this question after all
We are glad to hear This.
If this 10 all our neighbsr has been con
tending tor, we wonder that it should have
ever entertained any Doubt of the TINES
being in accord with its views Our cos
temporary need net have gone clear back
to our comments On Gov. Hsmiitun's nice
sage to have satisfied itself in thxt regard,
because in eur editorial Of Januar It'll
past, which was our first direct editorial
allusioa to this question. We distinctly
statsd that it was the opinion Of those
competent to judge that the compulsory
feature of the State inspection laws may
now BE- dispensed with, without dstrimsnt
y the system and sisDined eur concur
renee In that opinion.
Our concurrence in the proposition t.
abolish the compulsory feature il based
upon the opinion that the advantages If
forded to the producer by the State sys-
tenn are 20 manifest and great that the
compulsory feature il no longer needed.
and that its abolition will not prove de-
trimental to the system. Relieving, - We
do, that the Stale system of inspection AZ
fords most necessary protection to the
interests OF tie planter, We certainly can
not see in the prefxing by the State, ~
condition Of its Intervention, that all plant-
ers should submit to its inspection, any
thing bad or odious, especially as its RICH
TO do this forms part Of its expressly dele
gated constitutional powers five though
a. some OF those who are csntsnding for
it think, that the aboli ion of The compul-
sorry feature Of the State system would
furnish potent lever iol its ultimate to-
tai overthrow, we should earnestly oppose
such An innovation. But We do not think
that such will be the case, and, therefore,
are of opinion that the abolition Of the
compulsory feature may new be granted,
as q kind of concession to the idle ssnti-
mentality by which the enemies Of the
State inspection are endeavoring to ex-
cite prejudics against it.