Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1884-02-01
Compulsory Inspection.

|
The TIMES has heretofore shown that
the State system of tobacco inspection vas
established at the solicitation of the TO-
bacco growers of Maryland as means o.
placing their product upon the market
and that by their consent, speaking thro
the unanimous voice of their representa-
tives in the Legislature, the cempu sorry
feature was made the fundamental basis Of
the system and an essential cement there.
in. Without the compulsory feature o.
the law the State would have had no re.
liable guarantee of reimbursement for the
Indebtedness she incurred in this behalf
and without that feature the system never
could have been established, for the non,
tobacco growing counties of the State
would never have consented that she should
make herself trustee in favor of a partic.
ular section of the State, without adequate
indemnity against such trusteeship becom
ing pecuniary charge upon the whole
people.
The compulsory feature" as it is called
became, therefore, an essential element OF
the system and, as we have heretofore
maintained, until the State was fully re.
imbursed and freed from Indebtedness in
this behalf it would have been breach OF
faith on the part of the tobacco growers
to ask that it be dispensed with. When,
however, the State shall have been fully
reimbursed and discharged from liability
this reason will no longer have a direct
operation. The question will then be
what provident means the tobacco grow
ers should adopt to preserve their proper
ty in the warehouses and retain the bene-
fit of free storage for their product with
the great commercial ad vantages resulting
therefrom which theyhave secured through
this system.
We believe that when the supplement
airy report Of the comptroller concerning
this fund now in course of preparation, TO
which reference has heretofore been made,
shall be returned, that it will appear, if
all proper credits are given, that the State
is already fully reimbursed if not over
paid.
The question will then arise is not the
compulsory feature, at least in so far as
tobacco sold within the State is concern
ed, necessary to the successful maintenance
and preservation Of the State system and
its incidents of free storage etc 7 In our
last issue We expressed the opinion that it
is, and gave what seemed to be valid rea-
sons for that opinion. But further ques-
tion will also arise: Could not and ought
not the compulsory feature in so far as it
prohibits the expectation of tobacco out
side of the Safe and the sale OF it in other
markets and under other systems OF in
spectiou be dispensed with without work
ing any serious injury TO our State system
In our judgment this prohibition could
and ought to be dispensed with. Then,
without aiding and abetting any collision
and hostile competition within our own
State, our people would he afforded an
ample opportunity of availing themselves
Of the markets and the systems of so call
ed free inspections" in Virginia or New
York, which are now so much extolled by
the enemies of the State system in this
State. The charges for transportation from
the tobacco growing counties Of this State
to Alexandria or Norfolk in Virginia
would be as small and, to the first named
port, smaller than to Baltimore; while the
product could be put in the warehouses at
and New York at a very slight
ly increased charge. In this way eur peo-
pie would have an ample opportunity OF
testing the superiority and advantages OF
the 'free systems" before they threw their
State system overheard entirely. An u
to this extent was made in the
bill introduced into the Legislature of
1880, but through the opposition OF the
hostile corporation and mercantile inter
es's was defeated. We believe that this
change could be made to advantage at this
lime, if it be found, as We believe il will,
that the Tobacco Warehouse Sinking
Fund" is fully balanced. No further
change ought certainly to be made at pre-
cent.