Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1882-01-19

not make up 70 u this $200f After
Their experience in buying tobacco.
would they nos have fornd cut before
lsia fhey were giving rs less than they
kner Our Tobacco to be wovth2 But.
10 tnsy Still held back tie $0per cask
IS a oilet - : possible loss 81 = or
10 PET cask snd ret in face Of thia
statement q their own, they come be-
fore our Representatives and complain
% l0s from unfair inspections when
they actually own to using the sys-
TEN q sNindle Us out Of IS per cask
Of ls009 pounds. Thar cwn argument
and igares prove that It Is not the
farmers interest they are trying TO
advances but the absolute control Of
Inspections that they want. A few
ysars back and Maryland tobacco was
sc unlznown quantity in the French
contract Under the present system.
thsse men complain 50 bitterly OF, in
very short time it has grown from 0
20 10 Or Is, 900 cases, with gradual
upward tendency. Would this increase
IN demand have grown 60 rapidly If
our inst ections had caused the buyers
such actual loss2 This increase un-
der State Inspections alone exposes
the failsey Of their srgrment and
shows that instead Of driving them
froza our market il has brought and
still brings them in with increasing
demands. It does seem to me that
their own arguments and figures
zgainst. are our very strongest reasons
for sap ting State Inspections and
that the Messrs Boninger & Bros.
have given US logical reasons for con-
Guiding it best for US to stay as we are,
with some few reforms, such as having
no dead heads. no clerks or hands that
DO not earn their pay and fair sala-
ries, such as they can live on. but
have none but workers.
heard suggestion made few
days ago by gentleman who might
say was raised in the trade that woald
apparently cover all difficulties about
false packing, &C., "to have two sets
Of samples, the one to be held by the
Inspector, or some officer appointed
for the purpose, the other as now to
60 to the Agent, the breaks to be s
or 10 Instead Of 5 and each one well
raised. Certainly better than q
change Ia addition to this, pass a
law making it felony for any one to
pick sample. punishable by fine of
not less than 800 and Imprisonment
IN the penetentiary for not less than
100 days las much more as you pleasel
for each leaf Of a sample lOstiftsjly DC
faced By any party or parties, with
reward Of of the fine to any party
who can prove the guilt. The sarn-
pie drawn by the Inspector is gener-
ally fair one, but the agent or his
clerk picks it little. Il have seen it
done the buyer picks it little more
and when the hogshead reaches its
destination, the sample and hogshead
does not correspond and a howl is
raised Of false Inspections Tt is un-
fair to the Inspector, unfair to the
grower and unfair to the purchaser.
There are still other points. would
ike to discuss, but having exceeded
my length in both Of these articles,
why Iexpect | shall let it alone, only
begging cur citizens to urge our Rep
resentatiyes to abide by our present
system. With some such or better al
terationy khan those suggested above.
and if they cannot get these, why stick
to the present system as it is. As it
is, it Is certainly much better for us
than any system the European tobac-
CO Monopolists will ever give us. Free
inspections would only render them
free to rob US little more. and make
US veriest slaves TO the fraternity Of
buyers that ever existed. Regretting
10 have reached such length, I am,
Yours, &C.,
~ L. J. SUTTON.