Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1881-12-23
Tobacco Inspections.

We publish elsewhere long communl-
cation from Dr. P. W. Hawkins, inspector
Of Warehouse No. 3, upon the subject of
Maryland State inspections of tobacco
DR.. Hawkinss letter is in response to the
complaints of the Bros. Boninger, tobacco
exporters of Baltimore, to Gov. Hamilton,
which was recently published in the Bal
timore Sun and some other papers, and is
an able an effective answer thereto. The
letter contains many sound arguments and
much valuable information upon subject
of great interest to the readers of the
TIMES, and we commend it to the careful
perusal of all. The doctor thoroughly
dissects and reveals the hollowness of the
complaints of the M,ssrs. Boninger. He
shows, by comparison of their present
complaint and the one they made in 1873
that the two are not consistent with each
other; and, as the truth is always consis-
tent with itself, it results that one or the
other or both of the complaints of these
gentlemen against the State inspections of
tobacco are false. The doctor states as a
fact, that it has been discovered by exam
inaticn that 26 of the 81 false inspections,
charged to warehouse No. 3 in the CON-
plant of the Boningers, are due to outside
manipulations after the tobacco was taken
| from the warehouse. 1t would hardly lie
fair to presume that reputable merchants
would become partieeps eriminSs to such a
transaction as that, but the detection OF
such practice ought to impress upon the
Legislature the necessity of making strin-
gent provisions against such counterfeit
ing of the States certificates of inspection
The emptiness and falsity of many of
the charges preferred against the State in
spections about the times of the meeting
of the Legislature, are apt to cause think
ing people to suspect Interior and interes-
ted motives on the part OF those who make
them. 1t cannot be doubted that much OF
the hostility against the State system OF
inspections in Maryland is due to such
motives.
The TINES has heretofore fully express
ed its views upon the question of tobacco
inspections. While we are of opinion
that many judicious notifications of the
present system may be made to its advan-
tage, We are firm in the opinion that the
best interests OF the people of the tobacco
growing counties OF the State urgently
demand that the inspection of this pro
duet should be made by the regularly ap-
poin ed and qualified officers of the State,
and that the system of free storage should
be retained. Our opinion, ss we have
frequently heretofore stated, is predicated
upon the facts that, from the nature Of the
product and the multiplicity of its pro
ducers, some system of reliable, RESPONSE
BILE and impartial intervention between
the producersand the manufacturers of to-
bacco is rendered necessary; and that the
duly appointed, salaried and qualified
agent so fthe State furnish the only reliable
responsible and impartial intervention foI
this purpose In addition to that, as is show
by the facts quoted by DR.. Hawkins, the
Maryland State system is far less expen'
sive to the planter, than the private in
spections practiced in other States. We
invite an expression Of views from our
readers on this subject of so much loca
/ Importance.