Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1881-02-04
'DnrtQ oboffa @ ines
PORT TOBACCO:
Friday Morning, February 4th, 1881
Tobacco Inspections.

Friday Morning, February 4th, 1881.
Tobacco Inspections.
The question of the inspection of tobac-
CO is at present undergoing an extensive
discussion throughout the State. This is
a question in which the people of this
county are Immediately and essentially
interested, and. in view of the efforts which
are being made to procure the abolition
of the present system of State inspection
by the next legislature, it is very desira-
hle that this subject should now be freely
and fairly discussed among ds. 1t is pre-
sumed that the legislature will be, here
after as heretofore, Influenced in their le-
gislation upon this question by the senti-
ments of the people of the tobacco grow
ing counties, and it il very important,
therefore, that the proposed change, which
has such direct bearing upon or mater
ial interests, should now be thoroughly
examined in all its bearings. With this
view we shall endeavor to keep pace with
the discussion of the subject, and keep
our readers duly advised of the various
arguments which shall be adduced on
either side OF the question. We shall also
, be pleased to have the views of our lead
ing citizens upon this question briefly ex-
pressed, for publication in our columns
\ We reprint to-day from the Westminster
Adrocatc full and forcible letter from B
ID. Bond Esq, of Calvert county in re-
spouse to TIE comp'aints OF the o. s: con:
sui q. Bremen, recently transmitted to Go,
Hamilton by Secretary Evarts, and in de-
fnse of the State system. Mr.. Bond is an
extensive tobacco grower and leading citi
zen of Calvert county, and his views,
which impress Us as eminently sensible
and practical as we'll as just and logical,
will, we believe, be read with interest by
all who are engaged in the growth of to-
bacco. Mr.. Bond gives the reasons fully
and forcibly that influence him to favor a
continuation of the State system, and it is
order to relieve the people from this great
IN to be hoped that those who assert that
oppression it will be necessary to elect le-
gislature favorable to the abolition of the
inspection laws" will be equally gene, Gus
and inform US whereof this great sppres,
sionn consists. MIR. Bond controverts the
assertion that the demand for Maryland
tobacco is in any wise impaired by the
State inspection, and refers to the market
reports to show that the demand for the
Maryland product, which is inspected ex,
= clusively at the State warehouses, ha:
sesn uniformly better than for that Of
Ohio, which is inspected chiefly at the B
s o. R. R. Cos so-called free inspection
warehouses at Locust Point. In supper,
of this point Of the letter it may be said
that this same consul at Bremen has since
communicated grave complaints agains,
} the New York system of private inspec.
tions, which be repre- 'ents as exceedingly
unsatisfactory, and says that the Bremen
dealers have expressed their determination
not to buy in New York, if they can get
the tobacco they want in any other port
Baltimore not excepted) So that it ap-
pears that it is not the imperfectiens OF
the Safe inspection alone that is objected
to by these German dealers, but that the
very system which is proposed to be sub
stituted for the State system is also equal
", if not more vehemently, condemned by
them.
This would seem to lead to the conclu-
sion that the failure of the samples to cor
respond with the bulk of the hogsheads,
which is the source of all complaints, re-
suits, as is said by Mr.. Bond and others
who have defended the State system, ra-
ther from the manipulation of the samples
after they are drawn than from an original
non-correspondence with the bulk.
We hope that this all important subject
will undergo in the tobacco growing coun-
ties thorough and exhaustive, fair and
full discussion, in order that the position
that our representatives in the next legis-
lature shall assume on this question may
be in accordance with our best interests
The inquiries which are naturally sug
gested by this question are, first, is any
Intervention between the producer and
the manufacturer of tobacco, for the pur-
pose of inspection and sampling necessary
and second, to whom can this intervsn-
tion be best entrusted in order to equally
protect the interests of both classes2 We
shall endeavor in our next issue to briefly
discuss these two branches of the inquiry.