The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1900-05-25
The Tobacco Warehouses.
LOCUST POINT TOBACCO INSPECTION, !
Office of the Managers,
Baltimore, May 18th, 1900. J

slant you gave conslueIapie Sl'.o w :"
letter written 10y our friend, Hon. Thomas
H. Bond, for the purpose OF lmpartlng "a
full knowledge of the consequences to
''those of our planters who may elect to
send their tobacco to Locust Point. AS
the tendency of the letter is to inJure the
business by which we are endeavo-lng TO
earn our livelihood, we hope you Will not
| consider it unreasonable if we ask you
| also to afford us the necessary space in
your columns to let the readers of Mr..
| Bonds letter have the benefit of our side
| of the question as well.
To begin with. as we are not Identified
| in any way with either Of the warning
| factions in Charles county" or in any 9TH
er county, and as our relations to the
| present State administration are not only
friendly but cordial, we have no criticism
whatever to make upon the distribution
| of screwmen places already made or now
in contemplation by the Governor, which
| is discussed by Mr.. Bond; and he very
| Justly remarks, "Politicians and party
| workers will of course contend for the
spells of victory, but the grower who de-
| votes himself to his business has very little
| interest in the personnel of the Governor 5
| appointees."
Neither have we any criticism to make,
| adverse or otherwise, upon the conduct or
| management of the State Tobacco Ware
| houses, as our claim for the patronage OF
| growers is based not on any alleged short
coming of our competitors, but solely upon
| the great advantages which we offer to
those who may elect to have their tobacco
inspected at our warehouses, where we
claim that the highest standard for accu-
racy and management that has ever been
reached in any Tobacco Inspection Ware
| house in this country is now maintained,
| We make nc invidious comparison with
| the State Tobacco Warehouses. All we
| ask the planter to do is what we valnly
| endeavored to persuade Mr.. Bond to do
| when last in the city, to visit our ware
houses, examine our method and appli-
ances ard see the advantages and facili-
| ties which we offer, and then visit the
State Tobacco Warehouses and judge for
| themselves where it will be most for their
| interest to have their tobacco inspected.
! If they will only do this we will be con-
| tented to abide by the result.
Mr. Bonds arguments against sending
| tobacco to our warehouses for inspection
| are briefly as follows:
1. Our system is rot less costly than in
the State Warehouses, because the charges
ale the same.
2. Our system is no better than theirs,
because we have copied and adopted the
State system.
3. Our sampling is not more favorable
| to the grower, because Mr.. Leftwich him
self told Mr.. Bond that they made very
| few mistakes in that direction.
4. That buyers show no preference for
Locust Point inspections, because several
commission agents" have assured him that
there is none.
5. That the commission agents prefer
| the State Warehouses as more convenient
| to them.
Mr.. Bond then goes on to say, that, as
| the planter can derive no direct advantages
| from having us inspect his tobacco, he
should be prevented from doing so by the
apprehension of the fearful consequences
which must necessarily result from such a
course. These he depicts in lurid terms
as follows:
| /. The State Tobacco Warehouses can
not continue self-supporting, and will ul-
timately be sold and the money be turned
into the State Treasury for the benefit of
the tobacco growing counties.
| 2. AS a result, when our State Houses
are lost to US we must expect the same
| fate that has overtaken the growers in
Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and Missouri"
where, according to the information col
! lected by Mr.. Bond t,oenty gears age, the
charges for inspection then ran from four
to five dollars per hid. (We never heard
of any inspection that cost 81 to S. per
hhd)
Having thus given what anyone who
has read his letter must acknowledge to
be fair statement of Mr.. Bonds argu-
ments as presented, we would like to point
| out the fallacies therein, which arise mainly
from the inaccurate premises he assumes
In the first place, it does not follow that
our inspection is not less costly to the
grower than that of the State Warehouses
because the charges are the same, for after
| 4 81; ~,
warehouse and inspected it we then deliver
it at the waters edge and the railway ter
minals, where it can be loaded on the buy
er's vessel or car, from our wharf, ant
thus save the expense of transportation
from the State Warehouses, which
whether paid originally by the buyer OF
the seller, must ultimately come out of tn,
latter's pocket.
In the second place, it does not follow
that because both inspections may be con
Quoted upon the same system one of then
may not be better than the other, any
more than it follows because the elections
are conducted all over the State unde tn,
same law that they may not be fairer il
| ~
system of tobacco inspection can be in
vented any more than any election law
can be framed which will be automatic
The method Of administering it counts 70
US as much as the excellence of the system
in the results produced. Now what w
claim for our establishment is that will
our unequalled facilities and long expert
ence, and by the care we have taken il
selecting our employees, and the strict &C
countability to which we hold them in thu
discharge of their duties, we have attained
the very highest standard of accuracy ant
excellence in the business And in proc
thereof, we simply ask the growers to visi
and examine our warehouse and Soe TO
for H,lns, Tres uad mot be nii$ieI By cOH t,isint
reports As to whether the State Ware
houses, with the frequent changes in the
| nj, oh.