needs be so? Do we not see how many commodities
which are not inspected at all? Do we not
buy in the same way? Many articles that we
import, take their value from the place of growth,
or production, and so of our exports. We have
no inspection of coffee, tea, sugar, molasses and
thousands of other things that are sold by the
bale, box or hogshead. In all these transactions
the judgment of the dealers is the only guarantee
of quality or soundness. Each man in business
has a reputation to achieve or maintain—and his
own interest indicates how this can behest done.
He must be honest and command the confidence
of the trading community. There are many ar-
ticles that require inspection as well for deter-
mining the quality as well as the quantity. For
all this, let the judgment and the integrity of a
licensed inspector, selected by the parties, be the
surest protection against mistake as well as fraud.
We have commissioned gangers, measurers, wood
corders, and inspectors generally. But do they
afford any security against artificial evaporation,
or against a long or short measure? When they
shall have honestly done their duty, the same
frauds may be perpetrated by the dealer that
could occur after a licensed inspector. If this
business be left to individual merit and competi-
tion, it will be quite as well done as now. Per-
sons from the counties, too, might go to Balti-
more and obtain licenses, and get plenty of work,
because none will go who are incompetent, and
the trust worthy alone will be employed. If it
be said that combinations may be formed be-
tween the dealers and inspectors, I ask who
can say that they do not exist under the present
system? We know that such things are loudly
complained of. The new plan may remedy this
evil.
This plan need nut diminish the State revenue.
The Legislature can regulate this, so as to make
the system a source of greater revenue to the
State. We derive a large amount now from
auctioneers and other dealers, and I cannot per-
ceive any good reason for not embracing our in-
spections within the same revenue system. The
measure as proposed, except tobacco, live stock,
and hay and straw, because the State has already
extensive buildings devoted to this business from
which revenue is derived, and private individuals
could not afford to purchase or rent lots, and put
up the necessary fixtures on them, on account
and risk.
[The hammer fell.]
I regret that time does not allow a more par-
ticular discussion of this important question. I
commend the measure to the attention of the
Convention, as well worthy of their approval, and
I believe that the interest of all classes, except
the office seekers, will be promoted by its adop-
tion.
Mr. SPENCER made some remarks which will
be published hereafter.
Mr. JOHNSON said:
That he had a memorial in his hand, signed by
millers and merchants, dealers in flour, who
were extremely anxious that the present grade
which made flour so highly esteemed at home |
and abroad, should be continued under the present
regulations. The memorial was very short,
and was signed by men of the highest character
in the State, to the number of eighty. He hoped
the clerk would read the memorial, to see bow
these gentlemen discussed this question.
The petition was accordingly read by the
clerk.
The gentleman from Prince George's had been
kind enough to incorporate into his proposition
the very idea that he had rose to advocate, the
continuance of the flour inspections, leaving
them as they now existed. Whether the amend-
ment should be adopted or rejected, he was not
prepared to say it would be wise or unwise, be-
cause he was not familiar with the subject, and
he was, therefore, left very much under the con-
trol of these gentlemen who had more knowledge
and judgment than he had. He would, how-
ever, say that the present inspections brought a
revenue of four hundred dollars into the Trea-
sury, and therefore it was a matter of State rev-
enue.
Mr. SPENCER made a few further remarks.
Mr. GWINN confessed that he was extremely
anxious with regard to this matter, and for the
simple reason, that during his recent visits home
he had been asked more questions with relation
to the policy of the inspection laws than in refer-
ence to many other questions of apparently more
importance, which this House had seen proper
to agitate. If there would be no reason for abol-
ishing inspections upon tobacco, there could be
none for abolishing other inspections fixed by
law. He could not perceive with what justice
gentlemen claimed that tobacco should be pro-
tected by such a system, and that every other
commodity now inspected by law should be freed
from the protection of the inspection laws. He
thought that there was but one opinion in the
city of Baltimore as to the propriety of continu-
ing this system. The gentleman from Frederick,
(Mr. Johnson,) had brought forward a memorial
in reference to flour. The price of this article
would be seriously affected by the abolition of
the inspection. Mr. G. here referred to the
Liverpool prices current, and showed that there
was four shillings difference per barrel in favor
of the commodity brought from ports where the
laws of inspection existed. He did not attribute
this to the fact that Maryland flour was better
than Ohio or New York flour. It was merely
because the general character of the Maryland
flour by the law of inspection, was superior to
that grade of flour which was not inspected at all.
How was it with reference to lumber? We
had been told by the master-builders that they
required inspection for lumber. They were
not willing to rely upon private inspection, be-
cause the whole system was radically corrupt.
The system of common fees had not been resort-
ed to for the reasons given by the gentleman
from Prince George's, but because the opinion
grew up in Baltimore, that inspectors might be-
come too much under the influence of the em-
ployers, and were not doing their duty to the
State. That was the reason why the offices |
