The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-05-19
The LeaG-Tobaceo Trade of Richmond.

To the Editor OF the DtSp0tch:
Having observed a communication in
your Issue OF the 18th instant on the above
subject. we take the liberty to add few
remarks to what was well set forth by "To-
bacco," 50 far as it went The trouble for
the past few years has been entirely con-
fined to the bright grades OF tobacco, and
the question Is, Why did this trouble
arise? We think the matter can be easily
explained by the fact that manufacturers
discovered that spectators were set up in
all the little inland villages and towns,
backed by the commission merchants and
brokers, who in NANNY cases were mutually,
and sometimes wholly, interested in the
profits and losses, and the planters, finding
great competition in these markets, deemed
il TO their interest TO sell their tobacco in the
loose state near home, thus saving to
themselves the expense OF freight and
packing, and the manufacturers found
il less expensive to meet these buyers on
the threshold than to pay them q profit on
/ the Richmond market for mixed packages
in many cases, and in buying these they
got great deal OF tobacco which they
could not use TO advantage, and ii required
the strietest attention on the part OF the IN
SpectOrs TO get fair sample from packages
/ thus mixed and priced, hence the COM
plants about unfair sampling and the fan
cied necessity for a general city inspector,
which has at last been inaugurated with
the result that is fast being developed
that Of dissatisfaction on the part Of the
! dark-tobacco men, both producers and re-
| handlers, driving them To other markets
where inducements are being offered them
by drummers and flaming circulars, calling
/ their attention TO the fact that they have
"no one mans inspection" thus increas-
ing prejudice to the trade system OF Rich
mond. and actually diyerting the tobacco
which has always been sold on this market
to the injury OF its merchants.
We predicted this state Of things i'm the
very beginning, and il is very natural that
the planters should conclude that this trade
system Of appointing its own inspector
bodies no good for them. We believe that
the system OF selling over the packages
would be very attractive and acceptable to
the planters, and is the only mode by
which that class OF trade can be restored TO
this market; but this must be done by the
warehousemen themselves without any in
reference OF city inspector, rs the preju-
dice against any one-sided inspection is too
great ever to be overcome, and the sooner
= iNt'ANNN ny tut tltUt Tie DclItf III
viii be Tor this market. The presen. sys-
TEN, even II it was beneficial in its re-
suits, is unjust to the dark tobacco in levy.
ing a tax OF Is cents per package for in
spect0rs' fees upon that for the purpose OF
enabling the inspector to pay drawbacks on
the bright article, thereby exacting con-
tribution from the one for the support OF
the other, as il Is well known that reclama-
tions on dark tobacco are few and far be-
tween, and when made can be settled at
small cost.
| We can see no reason that we should ape
the western mode in whole or in part, so
far as the general inspector is concerned,
as we have been often told that there were
twenty reclamations on samples drawn in
the West to one on those drawn in this city
previous to the Inauguration OF the present
system; and why should the Trade entail
upon the warehouscmcn or anybody else
the expense of twenty-five cents per pack
age for samples drawn by general in
spector when they eau perform these duties
Just as well al little or no additional cost to
Themselves And AZ 10 responsibility for
the sample, the seller should be the respon-
siblc party, and that OF itself would make
the owner prize his tobacco fairly, and the
merchant who sells for him viii very soon