were divided, and thrown into a common fund.
The system, it was said., worked well, and it; was
likely would continue, for under it, there was
a fair and proper distribution of duty. He hoped
the House would leave the matter to the
Legislature. He had searched the records of
the Legislature during the last ten years, and had
only found three or four memorials coming from
the city of Baltimore, and they were wounded
upon the alleged misconduct of these individual
inspectors.
Mr. PHELPS said that this was a subject in
which the people he had the honor in part to re-
present, felt deep interest. So with regard to the
wood corders and lumber inspectors, but especi-
ally the former, for there was a very large class
of his constituency, engaged in carrying wood
and lumber to the city of Baltimore. The com-
plaint was universal, and he had never heard a
single individual who did not complain of the
treatment they received in Baltimore, with re-
gard to inspectors.
Gentlemen had said that flour and tobacco
should be inspected. He concurred in this be-
cause they required inspection. But it was not
so with lumber, staves, plank, and cord wood
Every body could see their quality for themselves,
and it was nonsensical that there should be inspec-
tors for the purpose of contracting between A
and B, in regard to these principal articles of
trade. The purchaser ought to be able to say, I
will give you so much for plank and lumber.
The parties were competent to make engagements
for themselves, but now they had to call in a third
person, and the fact was that the people of their
Shore, who were engaged in this trade, were
cheated out of the larger portion of their profits.
Mr SPENCER remarked that if they should
abolish the inspectors, the corporate authorities
of Baltimore would appoint inspectors. They
would appoint wood corders, who, instead of being
under the control of the wood corder of the
State, would be under the control of the city of
Baltimore.
Mr. PHELPS had no objection to the license
system. If the Constitution should provide that
they should not have wood corders or lumber inspectors,
and every man should be competent to
contract in his own way, they could prevent the
authorities of Baltimore from interposing a third
parly between individuals. He had no particular
objection to the license system, because then it
would be a matter of choice, and they could se-
lect whom they pleased. He desired to break up
the union between the lumber inspectors, wood
corders, and wood hucksters, and if he had his
way, he would abolish this kind of inspection al-
together. He believed that all articles which
could not be seen or examined properly, and
judged of by the masses, should be inspected.
In regard to staves, lumber, and plank, it was a
matter which the people could examine for them-
selves, and he did not see why persons of the age
of twenty-one years should not have the privi-
lege of making their own contracts in their own
way.
If the office of wood corder alone was abol- |
ished, in his estimation, thousands of dollars
would he saved annually to his own constituency.
That a most baneful collusion exists between the
wood corders and wood hucksters, as they are called,
of the city of Baltimore, to the direct injury of
the people from the counties, who trade in this
article, is universally believed. To such an ex-
tent has this species of traffic been carried of late,
that it is now impossible to sell a cargo of cord
wood to any other than to these hucksters, and at.
such reduced prices as will secure to these par-
ties, when re-sold to the citizens, a large profit.
Abolish this class of officers, and then no barrier
will exist between a legitimate and fair trade
being conducted between the seller's and the citi-
zens, for their own proper use
The laws of trade, Mr. President, should be
free and unrestrained; and parlies allowed to act
for themselves, apart from the trammels of police
regulations, which serve only to embarrass and to
impose useless taxation and difficulty. In fact
such officers are worse than useless, and should.
be at once and forever abolished.
Mr. BROWN should vote to strike out the sec-
tion. if they should have licensed inspectors,
those persons would only be able to have licenses
who were assured that they would be employed
by the large dealers of the city of Baltimore.—
No man would leave his home in the country, and
go to Baltimore for the business of taking out a
license to engage in a business, when he did not
know whether he would be able to obtain em-
ployment or not.
If they should find that they could obtain work,
they would be under the control of the dealer,
whoever he might be, and the producer, whose
labor was to be passed on, would never have the
choice for his protection. No producer or con-
sumer should have the appointment of the party
to decide in reference to the quality of the article
but they should have some person as distant as
possible from both to decide for them, and they
could not find that person except in the Gover-
nor of the State.
in his opinion the system proposed would
cause more cheating than was practised under
the present one. The inspectors were more de-
pendant upon the Governor, under the system
proposed, they would be dependant upon the pro-
ducer or consumer. Now they could act more
independently; they had a duty to perform, and
there were no influences acting upon them. This
would not be so if they should adopt the license
system.
They should make the inspectors independent
of both parties; if they did not, they would find
that the price of flour would decrease. He
should like also to see tobacco inspectors.
He undertook to say, this was the entering
wedge of a new scheme, and he had no doubt
that system in the State of New York was gotten
up by the people interested in it. For the rea-
sons he had given, he would go for the existing
inspection of all articles.
Mr. THOMAS made some remarks which will
be published hereafter.
Mr. TUCK said that in regard, to New York, |
