Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1884-02-22

-Four counties-Kent, Queen Anne, Dor
chester and Talbot-are not credited with the
production or any OF this commodity
Now the only reasonable Interpretation
to be given to the term tobacco growing
counties" is to construe it to relate TO the
counties in which tobacco is the chief staple,
exceeding in value any other produc' ion.
If this rule he not adopted. it will be i'm
possible to draw the line anywhere else ;
all OF the nineteen counties in which any
to bacco at all is produced could claim to
be tobacco growing counties. 1t is obvi-
Gus that this was not the intention of the
Legislature in the use of the term, because
when you give it that Interpretation you
deprive it of any meaning whatever.
Adopting then the obvious and only
reasonable Interpretation of the term, and
constituting it as referring to the counties
in which tobacco is the chief article of
agricultural production and you have on
ly to glance at the table above to ascer-
tain what counties we've intended to be
designated. Obviously the first five coun-
ties of Prince Georges, Charles, Anne Aruu-
del, ST. Mary's and Calvert, in which the
annual production of tobacco ranges from
nearly four to over six million pounds each
were referred to as the tobacco growing
cousties of the State, and Montgomery, in
which the production is much less than
one million and annually diminishing and
all the the counties following it in the list
are excluded. II ,oiN be perceioed that the
aggregate annual production Of Montgomery
and the thirteen counties that .tollou it only
amounts to 1, 604 221 pounds, much less than
oae-third Of the production Of Charles alone
1t must follow, therefore, that, if the
plain letter of this law is not to be disre-
garded, two additional inspectors should
be appointed from these FIVE counties and
that two of the three appointees which
have been made from outside of these
counties should not be confirmed by the
Senate.
From the fact that Mr.. McLane entirely
disregarded the time spec led in the act
for the making of thes 8 ,pointments, it
seems fair to presume ma be was not a.
ware Of the existence of the act we have
quoted, and it is probable that when his at
tention shall be directed to the law that
he may see fit to revoke two of these ap-
pointments and give them to the tobacco
growing counties where they rightfully
belong. We cannot permit ourselves to
believe that. when his attention is called
to the law regulating these appointments,
the Governor will insist on appointing an
inspector from Baltimore county with its
5000 pounds of tobacco and one also from
Baltimore city. The reason of the law
requiring these appointments to be made
from the tobacco growing counties was a
substantial one and of two fold charac-
ter first the citizens of the counties in
which tobacco is the chief staple are sup
posed to be better qualified, by reason of
their greater familiarity with it, to make
proper inspections; and second, as these
counties contribute exclusively the fund
from which the salaries OF these offices are
paid, it IS but just that their citizens
should be appointed to the service. The
only defect in the law Was that il did no,
require that all the appointments should
be made from these counties The law
is a just and proper one and should not
be disregarded.
We hope Governor McLlne will see fit
to revoke at least his appointment from
either Baltimore county or B fillmore city
and appoint an inspector from Charles
Charles is the second tobacco growing coun-
ty in the State, and if political feally is to
be an influence in the matter, it can be
shown that at the last election this coun-
ty gave the Governor the votes of a larger
proportion of her white registered voting
population than any county in the State.