The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1881-02-05
Maryland Tobacco Inspection.

Maryland Tobacco Inspection
The Democratic Advocate, of Westminster seems to
have been misnformed both as to the scope ana the
history of the tobacco inspection laws of Maryland
The defenders of free inspection are not odNocals
local interests near so much as those prlelPlSS
General Justice which make to the interests OF an
alike The Advocate is absolutely wrong IN asSun-
ing that free inspection VIII pc aaVeTse 70 se ~ the
merchant and exporter Nor is it more correct ~
interpretations of the state Inspection Jaw ~ ,h
stands That law in its present shape is NANNY inc
creation of the Legislatures of 1872 and ISIS Inc m
sDeetion system crystalized in the old act o. AS
sesa0iy Of I7l5. All that is now proposed oy tiose
who have he best interests of the State at heart %
preserve the admittedly wise and eeenomiea1 ieS-
lures of the established system, ana TO eliin1ha.e
from these the unnecessary and obstructive elements
which keep business away from our port. Inc o9-
iectiona0le parts of our tobacco system are mainly
political. Compulsory inspection would never nave
been maintained but for the fact that it was sup
posed to contribute essentially TO the reinforcement
of political patronage. Merchants deal win one
another on business principles. A Baltimore mer-
chant when he now ships hogshead OF tobacco %
bremen or Marseilles, to Havre or Liverpool mas 70
notify his consignee that twas Inspected by an ON
Ger amounted not because he was judge tobacco
or an expert in inspection, but because ne au SONY
political services in one of the counties that seeneu
10 demand recognition Of the State authoT1ues.
VIII the Advocate venture far as TO assume tat y
will obstrct rather than favor the sale OF te D4lt
more mer hants consignment OF Msrylanp ~ ~
gfnia Kentucky or Ohio tobacco, IL ne shonlu oe
able to add to the bottom of his invoice msnloIaa
dun to the effect that the hogshead has beeh m
spected by an expert OF MS own Sedeet9 sbonid
private inspection add to the cost oil topace9, Mhe
merchants have every object in the world 70 sen anu
deliver as cheaply as pOSsible2 II the argument
should be seriously made that the State would lose
money by free inspection IL would prooapiS " nst
at once BY an offer to lease the state
alive 10 the government at Annapolis But IhAt
argument will not be offered u is not the revenue
which is in peril from Tree Aspesiion. nor tne
nlanfiu0 interest but only the ppQlnftng power.
Patronage" is the fly in theRssdt S olIltlieLsyt
hlia h9liie rs So tbe No 6ecahss the most
perfect example of free inspection, ana ths
there is but 81 80 per hogshead against 81
This advantage is SO obvious that u does hot e "
re enforced any further. The Adroode suggests thsI
s'by abolishing the State system and win II iree
tSraee I,rivate inspectors could add to their reVe
nues By charges for storage. put Tree llsleetloh
docs not imply at all the abolition Of inc Siae sys
fem Il simply proposes 10 perfect II .! rslaosiIg
Ihe chief defect in that system II the stare haa no
warehouses il would not be wise. perhaps e esiao
fish them now but having them. the best thlng e
dois 10 utilize them as cheaply rs possible Tor me
common good Of all instead of retaining them 20
serve as they do mainly for political purposes
The above article, from the Baltimore Sun,
of Wednesday, is an intended replication to
the ApvocATE's comments last week on the
Suns advocacy of tree tobacco inspection.
The ability, which generally eharaeterizes the
!S.aa's editorials, is lacking, and We are forced
10 believe that our article was not closely
read. rather than eonelndethe SUH has lodged
the issue.
The SIN disclaims the advocacy Of local
interests solely, aud asserts that the interests
of planters, as well as those Of private IN
spectors and exporters, would be conserved by
free inspection, but IL does not tell us hor!
Assertion is easy, but to subs,aniiaie 1t by
argument is often quite difficult. That jour
nal has been warning upon the compulsory
feature Of the State system for some weeks,
and It has Invariably based its objections
upon the ground that the system works injury
10 the interests OF Baltimore, claiming that, II
free inspection prevailed, the great Western
crops would pour into Baltimore and give ITS
exports a boom.
Oar contemporary thinks the ADvocarE is
not vel informed % the tobacco inspection
laws. bat on that point the ADVOCATE can re-
turn the compliment. On few points, how
ever. there can be no controversy between the
Sea aud the ADVOCATE. First, that Western
tobacco is not compelled to go 10 the State
warehouses for inspection second, that IT II
does. il is permitted to remain there. sold or
unsold. wiihout charges for storage third, II
stored there Blore than four months only IF
teen cents hog4heai per month is charged.
The ADVOCATE showed last week the advans-
age OF BALTIMORE, under the State system, over
New York where free inspection prevails, yet
the .Saa does not allnde to that, bat refers 10
the '.obyious' advantage OF Louisville over
Baltimore. Let as examine what hat OBJ
vious advantage is. The outage in Louis
vile is SI.5O aud in Baltimore -. II tobae
CO is sold Immediately. Louisville would pos
sess some advantage over Baltimore: bat il
the planter desires TO hold his tobacco for a
rise in the market, or for other reasons, the
advantage Baltimore would possess would be
the difference of fifteen cents per month stor-
age ON hogshead in Baltimore against fifty
cents per month storage in Louisville Plant
ers, By shipping 10 Baltimore, can hold heir
tobacco a considerable time at small expense,
and are not at the mercy of spectators. By
shipping to Louisville they are forced TO ac-
cent one or the other horn Of dilemms-
either 70 be subjected to steep LeOiBpaFea
with Baltimoreisl storage charges, or to sell
at whatever price bEyers may offer. In Bal
timore dealers cannot coBtrol the market TO
the disadvantage Of the planter aad TO their
own profit. If they attempt TO "bear' he
market, planters can hold.
The 'sobvioasn advantage, thea, We take H.
is in favor of Baltimore. Not only has Bal
timore advantage over Louisville, but over
Cincinnati, where the inspection charges vary
from IS 10 SO and storage is Fly eeSis per
month, aad over New York, where the in
spection Is - aad storage forty cents per
month";
The advantages Of Baltimore over other
tobacco msrleis being shown, let US compare
shs inzoeetion Of Baltiuic Re with other points.
All las controversy over the State Inspection
system originated in letter Com the listed
Safes Consul a, Bremen. stating complaints
of Bl emen raspcE,an,s agsinsi Maryland State
5n,pecticn. Scarcely he'd this letter been
published than the Consul xEste another let
Ter. stating, in effect, that complaint was
made against New York inspection also, and
Darftzaar complqint against KeHtGcAy and
Virginia tobaccos. Louisyilleisin Kentucky,
and the Sun says its inspection is the beet, yet
the Consul at Brennan says that while com
plant Is made against Maryland State in
speetion, particular complaint is made against
Kentucky tohaceo--Louisyiile inspeeAiOa.
The inspection being a. good in Baltimore
as elsewhere. and the charges Of handling
being less, the only reason we can aiseover
why the ''great Western crops" don't come
to Baltimore and give her exports "a boom,
is that stated last week--the decrying Of our
STATE inspection by the journals advocating
the free system.
As to tobacco grown out Of Maryland, acc
hare free inspection nor, if planters choose
to avail themselves Of il. But the State al
lows four months free storage and for longer
period the charge is quite small, saa private
inspectors must do the same. If the State
system is abolished, free storage would be
abolished With it. for other citizens would not
consent to the State maintaining free storage
room for tobacco planners. when the ware
houses could be turned to the Sasncial BEN
eft of the State. By repeating only the eom-
Il. Co. cu,.,-, yghila