The Portland daily press., 1884-05-30
THE INSPECTION or or.

Stat ment by Messrs. TwischelI, Cham
plin & t'o,-Tsey are Dissattsaed with
the Report of the Hearing Their Pc
tiiiOn and Make a Full Statement Of
Their Case
PORTLAND, May 29th, 1884.
70 the Editor Of the Portland Press: E,a &C.
we were much surprised to find In the Press of
tuesday morning an attack upon us, for we did not
suppose that the business matters of private indi
viduals would be deemed proper for the subject of
political article. @ ~ g M II
HE report Of the hearing upon our petition, In
the PRESS OF Monday, was so inaccurate aud In
complete thai an article based upon it must nsces-
ssfly be unjust While that report gave very fully
the grounds of the opposition to our petition 1t en-
tirely failed to give the reasons we advanced for
granting it. We found that the report read like a
partisan account Of an opposition political meeting
but as We had concluded to acquiesce quietly in the
decision We determined not to notice it until the
appearance OF your article the next day.
We must presume that you were not aware of the
ueiec.lve character OF the report of the hearing
and therefore we desire state briefly the reasons
we gave in support of the petition.
l. The Portland Kerosene OH Company in Cane
Elizabeth have one of their men for the Official
inspe s IN precisely the 81 me manner in which
we ask 70 nave one. That company thus saves sub
stantisly the inspeca g fees a. SEND III ir oil in
TO the city to be sold with, inspection here of
think the city, however, should not discriminate
against It's own dealers In favor of those out OF
town. =
B. Under the administration of Ma,or Septer
M; Greenough was appointed inspector at our es-
adjustment and we never heard Of any complaint
as 70 any failure to perform his duties faithfully
8. Under the administration of Mayor Libby he
was again appointed with the same result.
A. Under the administration of Mayor Deerfng
greement that arose between the Mayor and Board
Of Aldermen. We never heard thatthere were any
Opposition from the merchants. 100 ~-'
o-The system Of inspection, as it must be done
DS the city inspector, so defective that it fails TO
meet tne spirit OF the Law or protect the public
while the system proposed by us is absolutely safe,
II the Inspector is capable and honest as Mr. Green
ough was admitted to be.
6.-The cost of inspection by the CITY inspector
unoer the ordinance is from one to one aud q half
per cent. OF the selling price of the oil, and We
MOI oe saplected TO itsif 1t can he avoided
Our counsel exp essly stated that IL any objse-
tons wee made to the capacity Of Mr.. Greenough,
ne would submit 70 an examination. Bnt none
were made, and Mr.. Woodbury. expressly admitted
that he had no complaint TO make against Mr.
Greenough's capacity or honesty.
We fully agree with you that the dangers arising
from the use of coal oil public Dangers; and We
showed so that 1t was not Questioned hat by the
appointment of an Inspector who snail be constant
~ nc the works he can know absolutely that he has
mark.
On the other hand Mr.. Cloyes, expressly admitted
that when he inspected oil in the tanks he had to
trust TO Jno honesty and Care OF the EMPLOYEES
see that the oil tested went into the barrels marked
by him, and iG was SHOWN by him that 1t was i'm.
practicable to test the oil In every barrel when il is
barreled before it lie inspected THAT the custom
Is to test from five to twenty -fvs barrels out of
hundred, and if they are all right, to mark the
whole lott and more that inst cad Of markipg sen-
aiate inspection OF each OF the five or rs barrels
1t is he custom to mix the oil and submit that to
Inc test. AS consequence, it is impossible to de-
termine from the test whether every barrel tested
comes up To the standard or not while from three
fourthsto of the barrels are not
tested at all. q
That thls point has weight may be known BY tho
fact which, however, was not stated at the heariR
that in lot of one hundred bar, els inspected by
foi mer city inspector, there four barrels of
naph ha which bore the Official mark that they each
contained oil of the andard test; the reason was
tnat the Inspector in selecting his barrels from
wnlcn ne TOOK his samples did not happen to strike
one of these four.
Your stat. ment in the five to twos editorial that
ut appeared - =. that he (tbe private inspec.
tori did not snbject their oils to the tests required
by the sta ute. is erroneous such thing appear
ed on the c2straIy 1t did appear that the private
inspector did subject oils to the tests requted
by the ststute and branded the barrels accordi. q
~ but OF course omitted bis name as official inspec
tor. ~
Yon say further in the same paragraph that athe
oil ID BY the firm whenever any OF IL was rested by
tne omclal inspector was fuunn to vary several de-
tor" -'-'' ~ el''A " 'no pii'N'e inSpeoz
This is not true; and no statement SO general as
that was made by Mr.. Cloyes. In speaking of the
ms rument used b said that sometimes our instru-
ment failed to ignite the oil at the rame tempera5
lure that his did, and consequently in such cases
the tests varied several degrees. s-r 80
The fact that last year several attempts to have
addltioDal inspectors appointed failed under the
circumstances, We thil,k, more than Offset by the
fact that under the preceding admsstr ations when
were made,
Your inference. from the fact that last year we
had ecal contract as TO fees, gave us an advanI
age over other sellers of oil in this particular is
without foundation.
So far AS the evidence at the hearing went no one
there to oppose us ever paid cent for inspecting
OIL Take Mr.. Woodbury. as an example He said
that he had niue tenths of his oil from the Portland
Kerosene Oil Company, and it was h ,wn that all
tn II oil is inspected before it into the city by
was Maverick oil, ami Mr. Conley testified thar he
(Conley) paid for inspecting that.
You have already partially corrected the un-
that he had great difficulty in getting the firm to
bring lis oil to the st ndard.p Nor old he at Che
oils &c Get them nn to the stspdsra 70 H sad tSst
he once told us hat he had tease particular lot
OF oil to get it up to the standard And Mr. Cloyes
y y. no sucn man as to pass oil that he has to
tease to get ~ to the standard. Mr. Cloyes has
repeatedly told US that oil tested better than
in Portland.
The opposition to our petition came from the
Grocers ssociation, whose President (dr. Wood
pury) was their chief representative They do
comparatively small business in oil, and pay very
little for inspection they have their oil chiefly of
parties who inspect it, or pay for inspecting it.
themselves OF course. If they can compel US to
pay special tax OF from one rome and half per
cent on all our oil they get that ADVANTAGE; but Ii
does not seem to us reasonable that they should be
allowed to Deprive us of the very advantage Of
which they themselves quietly take the benefit
What the fact, thar We last year sold small
amount OF oil not officially tested but which We
knew from the tests applied to it to be above the
legal standard had to do with present petition
We cannot see. We doubted whether we were
obliged to employ the official inspector and pro-
posed to test the question, as had right te
but hnslly concluded to emplcy the city Inspector
AS to the closing paragraphs of your article, to
optaiu foundation for which seems to be the only
object Of the preceding ones, have only to say
that the facts that OF present Aldermen was
very prominent In the contest with the Mayor last
year, and that at the last Mayoralty election be
voted in the minority and our opponents at tae
hsaring all las We are informed) voted With the
majority, nigh iwel raise suspicion that ths five
to two" yote had some significance. Moreover, yonr
haste to discover the 1--WE to two fact and toen-
deaVor to use II to the disadvantage of the aBa
the glorifcation of the ave might also raise the
Suspicion that You preferred as we know you do to
discount an attack rather than be put On the de-