The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-01-14
Tho Tobacco-Inspection La~s-Con'
tinued.


Editors Disnafch: We wish to state
some other facts bearing on the above SUBJ
iect that the matter may be more thorough
IL understood by every one: First. Public
,xareborse in Richmond, belongs to the
state of Virginia. Second. Every other
tobacco warehouse in the State, so far as we
know, Is purely private properly, Jus. as
much so as any mans plah'a'ioh vi any
other private property. ,,
il concerned. we admit the fact that the
State. through its Legislature, can pass any
law il sees fiji for the management OF that
property. Let it be distinctly understood
that even under the late tobacco-inspection
bin introduced I'm the Legislature the State
will not derive. by that bill, one cent OF
revenue from the warehouses owned by
nriyate persons and yet ii is proposed to
give the Governor OF Virginia the right to
appoint one inspector at each OF such ware
bouses. Would it not look ridiculous for
bill TO be introduced in the Legislature
comforting on the Governor the power
of appointing overseers or managers for the
planters OF the State! Has not man own
ing private warehouse for handling to-
bacco as much right to Bay who he wants to
select manager for his plantationl Under
the bill lately introduced into the Legisla-
ture il a tobacco-planter wanted to ship his
crop to England he is debarred that right,
unless he will first 90 to the trouble OF
sending such tobacco to a warehouse which
has an inspector appointed by the Govern
ment, and let that inspector open and in
spect il. To do the latter will put such
planter to some 81 per hogshead expense,
not one copper OF which goes into the
Treasury OF Virginia. When it is remem-
bered that growers OF wheat, cotton, corn,
peanuts, &C., can ship out OF the country
any such articles without any inspection,
why should any planter or any one else be
| forced to the expense OF having tobacco
inspected by IN inspector appointed by
the Governor when he did not want
such tobacco so Inspected! Corn, jpea-
nuts, wheat, cotton, &C., can be
sold (and are constantly beng sold) by
samples drawn by private parties; and why,
we ask, cannot tobacco be sold IN the same
way? II the appointment blythe Governor
Of inspectors OF tobacco at warehouses
owned entirely by private parties brought
any revenue to the State, while we think
such modes of raising revenue would be
manifestly unjust, the bill would not be so
Objectionable as It now Is. There il
marked difference between incorporated
companies and purely private property.
White at times it might be right and proper
for the State to appoint officers to see that
such companies did not abuse the privileges
granted them by the State, yet we cannot
conceive the Justice OF the States undertake
ing to appoint men to manage the private
property of others, and that, too, against
the wishes Of IFS owners, and especially
when the State gets no benefit whatever by
making such appointments. In colonial
| times men in Virginia were hung Tor cut
ting down their own tobacco. This they did
to put up prices in England. Still later than
that. such tobacco as would not "pass
was by law (after being brought to markep
burned. Now, it is proposed that no one
shall export leaf tobacco unless such to-
bacco has been inspected by IN officer APP
pointed by the Governor. Are we never
to get rid OF laws indicating that tobacco
planters ard dealers are so soft-headed that
'they must have guardians appointed for
them by the Governor! We really mad
thought the world was moving, and that
the unjust shackes OF trade were melting
away, but the "new tobacco-inspection
| laws" introduced mo the Legislature
would look as il the sun do move" and
that, too, backwards.
According to the bill referred to no to-
bacco can be sold by sample unless the
sample was drawn at a warehouse having
an Inspector appointed by the Governor;
and yet, strange to say, though such in
spector has authority to break hogshead
or package in as many places as he
sees fit, yet she shall not be respon-
sible for any difference between the sam
pie (of course drawn by HIM and
the package from whence drawn, and
the buyer shall have recourse upon the SELL
er or owner OF such tobacco for non-c0m-
parison Of such sample with the package
so purchased by him. Now, is not that
rich? The owner or seller can't sample
such package, but il the inspector did not
sample it correctly, the owner or seller Is
made responsible to the purchaser OF such
package for the sample not corresponding
with the package. Pray where is the value Of
an inspectors Inspections Does this look
like any sort of justice, whether old-fashion-
ed or new! ROANOKE.