Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-01-25
FISH AND FLOUR TALK.
DISCUSSION IN THE ROUSE ON THg IN
sPEctIoss BILL.
The vste Indicates the Purpose Of the
Hoase TO Pass the Proposed
Measure.

Instead OF politiclans, as IS often the
cose, the House of Delegates was yesier-
day crowded with merchants aud busi'
ness-men. They were there to hear the
discussion of the inspection laws, the
question being on the engrossment of a
bill reported from the House Committee
or Propositions and Griev inces, propo-
sing so 10 amend the Code of 1873 as to
provide that inspections of -four and fish
should be optional with the buyer or
seiler-not compulsory, as at present.
THE OPENING.
The debate was opened by Mr.. Bu-
ford, who represented that these laws are
of no practical benefit to the trade or to
the public. and that they are burden
some tax upon the few communities in
the State where they are in force Only
in Richmond and three other cities is
the iish-inspecuOn law operative. The
fiour-inspection law requires that fonr
made outside OF the State shall be in
spected, while that made in Virginia is
exempted
Mr.. Buford made q careful review of
the law and pointed ont what he consid-
cred the injustice that is done the trade
of Richmond. He was sure that he re-
presented the sentiment Of this commu-
nifty in asking that compulsory inspec-
tions should be abolished.
Mr.. Echols asked MIR. Buford to ex-
plain how it was, if the Richmond peo-
pie were so unanimously of opinion that
the law was oppressive and unjust, that
over 400 of them had signed the petition
against the repeal
Mr.. Buford said that he would not
deny nor attempt to conceal the fact that
a number of very intelligent and very
respectable citizens of Richmond had
signed that petition. With all respect to
them he thought he knew the sentiment
of the business cOmmunity-especially
OF that portion OF it most directly affect
ed by these compulsory inspection laws.
Later on Mr. Echols asked Mr.. Figgat
the same questions, and Mr.. Fig2at re-
piled that many of the signers (who are
mostly retail dealers or consumers) had
signed under the belief that they were
pettioning for a repeal of all inspection
laws, and that some Of them had since
signed the petition praying the abolition
of compulsory inspections,
VARIOUS VIEWS.
Mr.. West, of Bedford, doubted the
policy of the proposed change.
Mr.. FigRat gave the reasons which
actuated the committee in reporting the
bill.
Mr.. Loving thought the change i'll
advised and dangerous. SO far from
being the fact that inspections are worth
less, they afforded the public a great
protection.
Mr. Waddill spoke in favor of the bill.
CoLLooUY.
While Mr.. WaddilI was on the floor
there was quite a spicy colloquy between
Mr.. Echols and him.
Mr.. Echols, by question. got Mr..
Waddill TO admit that he (Mr. WaddilD
had been counsel before court in one OF
the inspection-law cases-cOunsel against
the inspectors fact Mr.. Echols
spoke of as "fishy."
This somewhat reused the ire of Mr..
Waddill, who asked Mr., Echols what he
meant.
Mr. Echols said he meant nothing
offensive that il was term pertinent to
the subject under debate.
Mr.. Waddill then went on to say that
in Augusta there is large milling inte-
rest and thqt it would he quite as just
for him -. WaddilD for this reason to
attribute Il personal interest in this ques-
ton to Mr.. Echols as for Mr. EchOls to
attribute one to him because he had
been counsel.
The colloquy ended pleasantly after
good deal had been said.
Messrs. Mayo and q, A. Martin (Re-
publicans) then spoke in favor of the
bill
=.