the license system, as proposed by him, did not
exist there. In that State they had a free license
system without any authority at all. His propo-
sition was that the Legislature should provide
by law for licensing these persons. They had
twelve lumber inspectors and three or four flour
inspectors. Could not the Legislature regulate
all this in regard to fees, &c.? Why could it not
be done in reference to the license system as in
reference to the free system? The law now re-
gulated the officers who were to be appointed,
and could not the law regulate persons who were
to take out licenses in the same way? The dif-
ference between this State and New York, was
that in New York the law refused to have any
thing to do with it. He proposed that in this
State the Legislature should license the in-
spector, and penalties may be prescribed, to pro-
tect the buyer and the seller against corruption
and malpractice.
In reference to Baltimore city, and the change
of the inspection system Mr. (T.) would say
that the gentleman was older than he was, and
perhaps participated in the change, but he knew,
from his recollection of the matter what no one
will deny, that it was not altogether for the rea-
son assigned by the gentleman that the appoint-
ment of the inspectors was taken from the
mayor and city council, and given to the Ex-
ecutive,
It was because they gave the inspections to
Baltimore people, and did not give any of the
appointments to the counties. The people of the
counties being sellers, had a right to the office
as well as the people of Baltimore, and they
complained of combinations and frauds. No
gentleman who was familiar with the history of
public affairs, would deny that this did enter in-
to the causes of the change, and the gentlemen
of the upper counties were the very persons who
came here and demanded that the law should be
changed, so that inspectors might be taken from
the counties as well as from the city of Balti-
more. It was a contest between the counties
and Baltimore, and nothing more; and now he
would make a remark or two in reward to the
suggestion of the gentleman from Queen Anne
that he should except fish. Had any one present
ever seen a barrel of fish inspected? Perhaps
they had. He had seen some inspected by the
State inspector. A man knocked off the heads,
the inspector with a small hook took up one or
two fish, rarely going below the second row, and
the thing was done, except putting on the offi-
cial brand, indicating that this mighty work had
been performed by a man holding a commission
under the great seal of the State. Could not
any other man acquainted with salting and pack-
ing fish do this quite as well? This seemed to
be the only question.
I see no necessity for excepting flour—but I
have done so at the request of gentlemen from the
grain growing counties. We must not compare
this plan with the New York system. Indeed
they have no system there at all; and there is the
fault. Any man may inspect there, or probably
a great deal is bought without any inspection at |
all. But Baltimore flour is not always bought
by the inspector's brand. I never know who
inspects my flour. I always buy that from a
particular mill. The miller, with me, gives value
to the flour. I can go to Baltimore, or send
mere, and buy as good flour without any inspec-
tion, as if all the instruments of all the inspect-
ors had passed through it. Baltimore flour, al-
ways commanded a higher price than the New
York flour under any inspection. And this was
so when they had State inspections like ours. If
the New York flour has fallen in estimation it is
because they have no inspections under State au-
thority as we propose here. I do not wonder that
the dealers are opposed to it, because the present
system relieves them from responsibility. If they
sell flour or anything else after having been in-
spected, they are not responsible for the quality
of the article. Though you may compel them to
take it back, when sold, they are not to blame.
They have bought an inspected article. But if
you have licensed inspectors, dealers having a
choice, will always buy the brands of a man of
known skill and merit as an inspector. It will
make all men more particular in their purchases
of inspected articles.
I am surprised at the great opposition which
this clause has received from the reformers. A
measure may be a reform measure or not ac-
cording as it affects this party or that. I had
hoped that reform would show itself in the as-
sertion of some great cardinal principle—and
that the same principle would be extended to one
party, that was applied to another. But it seems
that reform depends more on expediency than
principle—and that the effect of a measure on
persons and parties has much to do with the fa-
vor it receives in a body, a majority of whom
profess to be reformers of all existing abuses in
government. They have taken very little from
the Governor's patronage—that little indeed is
scarcely of any value to his party—and all that is,
of consequence in controlling elections and keep-
ing his party in power is left with him, to be:
used, as doubtless it will be, for the purposes to
which power is usually applied. Most of the reform
adopted here, as to appointment to of-
fice has consisted in abolishing offices now held
by Whigs, or changing the mode of appointment
so as to make vacancies, and give the other party
a chance of filling some of them. But when this
opportunity is presented of relieving the Gover-
nor from responsibility, and preventing corrup-
tion among the people, the proposition is resisted
on arguments that seem to me to be rather found-
ed on political expediency than principle.
Mr. SHRIVER moved the previous question,
which was seconded, and the main question or-
dered, viz. on the adoption of the amendment of
Mr. SPENCER.
And the question being put, the amendment
was rejected.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the amendment of Mr. TUCK.
Mr. GWINN asked a division of the question on
the motion to strike out and insert, and the ques- |
