The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-02-25
A DISTORTED ORDINANCE.
HOW coNsIaNoRs OF MoLAssEs
HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON.
The Cost OF Gausing, and Also Inspec-
ton Of Scales, Charged Up to the
owner--A Questionable Practice Of
Long Standing.

lighted IL the matter can be adjusted with |
out sundering good fellowship between
the two important bodies. Both appear |
determined, as evidenced by the Lcgisla- |
tive Council at its meeting Thursday,
whore nearly all the members expressed |
themselves as resolved TO stand by Mr.. |
Armour. II is well known that Mr..
Mhoon has been chosen by the Merchants
exchange as Its recognized inspector,
gauger and wcigher, and has fitted up q
desk in the exchange building. Thus the
issue is clearly drawn, and is liable to re-
main until one side or the other Is frozen
out. AT present the chances are decidedly
against Mr.. Armour as nearly every one
having business for the inspector lisa MEM
Der OF the exchange. OF course there is
not enough for both, therefore one or the
other must 60 to the wall.
Following up the query in TIE APPEAL
of yesterday, a reporter sought legal coun-
sci on the proposition whether or not the
Merchants exchange really had the right
TO appoint an inspector. 1t seems the
right exists, and Mr.. Mhoon's labels are as
valid Us those Of his competitor. The ar
rangement is more in the nature OF an
agreement between buyer and seller than
legal responsibility requiring municipal
or statutory regulation. When Mr.. Mhoon
went into the Office OF inspector OF weights
and measures, four years ago. the mer-
chants also gave him the duty OF inspect
ing grain and gauging molasses, etc. Thus
the various kinds of business became
merged, and the general public supposed
they legally belonged there. But IL was
merely delegated, SO TO continue at the
will and pleasure OF the merchants.
In the investigation yesterday the re-
porter discovered one or two points which
could be made clearer by an explanation
from the parties involved. These parties
are the inspectors who have held the Office
as far back MS 1870, at least, and probably
many years previously. Just how far is
not known. The following sections from
the city ordinances will serve TO introduce
the points referred to:
"Section 90. lie shall make TO the Leg
islatiye Council on the first meeting OF
each month a report OF his Official trans
actions for the previous month, showing
the amount Of fees received and an epit-
ONE Of the kind and quality Of goods IN
spected.
"Section 81. For the performance OF his
various duties the said inspector shall
charge and receive from the owner or seller
the following fees and no others, to-wit:
81. For gauging and inspecting barrels
and half barrels OF whisky, brandy, wine
or any other liquors, molasses, oils or any
other similar articles under forty in num-
Der, cents. IL the number OF any LOT
exceed forty and under 100, then each
cents. For inspecting less than five, for
lot, Is cents.
"XIII. For inspecting scales, weights
steelyaids, and making them correct the
first time, each, So cents And for every
subsequent inspection OF the same scales,
weights and stcelyards, II found correct,
80 cents. But II found wrong, and they
are made correct, the charge shall be 90
! cents"
J The provisions Of this ordinance here
given-no other sections were investigated
were found materially changed In the
, practice. In gauging molasscs, the uni
form charge has been cents, without re-
! gard 10 the size of the lot The explana-
ton obtained was that tho extra cents
per barrel went toward the employing OF
labor TO put the barrels in position for In:
spection. For this there Is no expressed
or implied authority in the ordinance, and
| ttiAtfn hiOW VI nv ruah Batot hhAtt
: standing on their part. This charge falls
/, entirely upon the consignor, as L goes
, into the total Of commissions for sale, rs
part OF the expense, and hence local
! brokers are secured. In the gaug.
: ing OF molasses, Mr.. Mhoon placed
the total Of his collections at
a the rate OF 8 cents This II all
wrong contrary 10 the ordinances. Even
n were there authority for charging the 2
, cents extra 10 cover labor, the easiest way
4 would have been 10 report at the rate OF
q cents, and In his reports 10 the trustee,
4 which are also prescribed, deduct the
]. amount paid out along with his fees. But
|. the Office Is governed by the same rulel
that apply 10 others wherein income n by
fees. Take the clerks OF courts, for In
stance. There the fee system prevails,
and assistants are paid out OF them alone
q II the clerks fees amount 10 only 5000
and he employs three assistants, that 4
n his afTair, but nothing more than th'
= s., 900 Is available with which 10 pay
them. The court has nothing 10 do will
!. the clerical force Of his clerk In this no
= gard. SO II Ia In the gauging OF the mo
a lasses and other articles specified. Thu
" fees OF 8 and cents, rs regulated, cove
~ the entire cost 10 shipper and broker. j
"A | - not diihcult, III inc ltcc VI llicec iacHt v
4 zee how far out Of joint the office has beef
- allowed 10 get. How much has been col
:. lccted for which there was no warrant II !
a impossible 20 estimate. When II Is 70
:. membcred that there are nearly dozcI
NJ firms here for whom lots OF over forty bar
rcls are no unusual aud infrequent order
some idea Of their magnitude may be had
A similar arrangement has existed i
q the inspection Of scales. Instead OF CON
plying with the foregoing section, owner
g. Of scales have been taxed 30 per year 70
:. each pair for quarterly inspection. ThI
~ would be at the maximum cost were ever
Al pair found incorrect and remcdied. Tn
rule applied invariably, even when on
. firm had more than one pair. Tho excus
n for this departure was, TINT II went
es cover drayagc, ~ the inspector carried Oh
nj necessary paraphernalia. For this als
there Is no warrant In law, either expre'
-, or implied.
n. The foregoing Is the result Of one day
~ investigation. Whether Il extended b,
y, yond the lines referred 10, cannot be sai
NJ this time.
-