Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1882-01-20
"Observer'so observations.

We publish on our first page this
week, communication over the sig
nature of "Observer," on the subject
of tobacco inspections, intended as a
reply to the letter of DR.. Hawkins
published by us some weeks ago. II
is due to our readers to State that the
author of this communication is d
Baltimore gentleman, in no way con.
nected with the planting interest
His arguments are. nevertheless, emit.
tied to respectful consideration, and
as MS communication is evidentl,
prepared with care, We publish it az
presenting the views of those who OPP
pose the present system of State in
spections.
While "ObServer's' arguments are
quite ingeniously put forth, they dc
not impress us as by any means sat
isfactory answer to some of the point:
made by DR.. Hawkins in the commu
nication referred to. In the first
place it is admitted that. taking the
portion of the letter Of the Boninger.
quoted by DIR. Hawkins, wherein the,
complain Of 81 bad inspections, out o.
1880 hogsheadS, that it every logi
cally reduces the complaint to re
diculHs mnS,'" as characterized by
DR.. H.; bat "Observer" complain;
that DIR. Hawkins did not quote aIsc
the preceding paragraph of the letter
in which it was stated that some. ffl
of the 800 hogsheads turned out
very unsatisfactory, aud vastly infe
rior to the Baltimore samples" &c
which, in "Observer's" opinion, would
have avoided that conclusion. "Ob.
server" appears, however, to overlook
the fact that this assertion Of the Bon
myers is merely gratis dicta, and that
they offer no proof whatever to sui.
stantiate it. We think that all the
rules Of legitimate controversy justify
DR.. Hawkins in taking notice of only
so much of the allegations Of the let
ter as were attempted to be proved,
aud that he did right in treating the
idle allegations of the Boninsers as
mere surp'usage. 1t would seem,
therefore, that observer" virtually
comedies in the off. set that the CON-
plant Of the Boningers VA an exas-
Grated and ridiculous a(Fait.
Observer" then goes on 10 al|eec.
without proving, number of facts as
evidence that the State inspection
samples command no respect, and
are current nowhere" ltwould have
been very gratifying to us and our
readers among the planters, if lob
server" would have shown why the
samples of private warehouseman
should command more respect or be
more generally current.
Our correspondent refers TO letter
of Gov. Hamilton, as authority for the
allegation that the samples of the
State warehouses have not IA respon
sibility attached to them, available
under the ordinary CONNIE: cial
usages. We fear that in this con-
neciion observer has fallen mo 4
more serious fault than he accuses
DIR. Hawkins of, in n'isquuting his
Ekcellencv, the Governor We recol.
lect very distinctly that the Governor
stated in his letter that the parties
aggrieved would have right Of action
upon The bonds Of The inspectors max
ing HE Inspection complained OF. Ac.
cording to our understanding OF the
'ordinary commercial nsages." in
cases of sales ty samples, the only
remedy, where an amicable adjust
ment cannot be made. is TO proceed
by action in the courts aud sn5Siaati-
ate their claims By eriaeHee. This is
precisely what they would have to DO
in the case of a private inspector.
We think that o.r correspondent
entirely fails to exculpate the Bon.
myers from fatal inconsistency be-
tween their memorial of 1873 and
their complaints to Gov. Hamilton Of
last February and We fail again to
see wherein the quotation BY DIR.
Hawkins of so much of the paper in
question as was pertinent TO his SUBJ
ject constitutes any culpable "propen-
sity for culling."
We have not space to notice further
our correspondents numerous all.ga-
tons, but will remit him to the care
of DR.. Hawkins, or anv one else
among our county subscribers who
may feel inclined to take charge of
him.