I’ve written before (see my November 5, 2020, November 26, 2020, and January 14, 2021 blog entries) about Governor Robert Eden’s ham-handed approach to dealing with uncooperative legislators 250 years ago. To recap: when Maryland’s lower house delegates refused to renew an expiring tobacco inspection law because they wanted to reduce the taxes and fees it authorized, the governor issued an executive order (his Fee Proclamation) which ignored and overruled their legislative authority in the matter. When they complained, he dissolved the General Assembly and called for new elections. Then, when Eden started seeing the same old troublesome names among the lists of polling victors, he pushed back the start of the new government session from February to October 1771.
None of this went unnoticed or unremarked upon by political observers of the day. The February 7, 1771 issue of the Maryland Gazette published an anonymous letter by “A.B.” in which the writer posed a series of pointed “QUERIES” about recent developments.
First off, A.B. asked, “What Motives could have occasioned the Prorogation of the Assembly to the first of October next?” If Governor Eden’s move was meant “to extort a Petition from the People for an earlier Call of the Assembly,” then how might he and others interpret such a public petition, should one be forthcoming? Would it “not imply an unreasonable Fondness in the People for an Inspection Law, or a groundless Fear of a Power in the Officers to oppress the People on Account of Fees?” And if such an inference were justified, would not those officials “avail themselves of it to secure an Establishment of their Fees contrary to the Sentiments of the late Lower House, which seem to be approved in the new Choice of the old Members at the late Election?” Better for the reelected legislators and their voters to wait out the governor rather than signal an eagerness to settle the issue.
In the meantime, what should be done about the continued suspension of Maryland’s official tobacco inspection system? On that point, A.B. asked a final question that really answered itself: “Should not the Merchants and Planters, generally form a private Inspection, by Agreement, as nearly similar as may be to the late Law, upon the Plan already adopted in several Parts of the Province?”
Indeed, some counties had already instituted their own unofficial tobacco inspection procedures as early as November 1770, shortly after expiration of the law at the center of the controversy but before Governor Eden compounded the problem by his most recent actions. They followed a plan outlined in the December 6, 1770 Maryland Gazette.
The success of the proposal put forth by 25 tobacco merchants relied on the cooperation and participation of the colony’s planters. The merchants thought “it will be advantageous to the Country, that the Tobacco should go soon to Market, and of as good Quality as before the Expiration of the Inspection-Law, and that the Exportation of Virginia Trash from Maryland should be as much as possible prevented.” Ensuring the high quality of Maryland’s exported tobacco helped planters and merchants alike.
The merchants would appoint inspectors entrusted with receiving tobacco at the usual warehouses or alternative sites if necessary. Each inspector’s work would be subject to the impartial review of three “indifferent Persons.” Planters could count upon an accurate accounting of their inspected tobacco and a proper issuance of detailed receipts.
As A.B. and his readers understood, if all went according to plan, it would be as if the most beneficial aspects of the expired law were still in effect and the tobacco inspection system still in operation, thus depriving Robert Eden of the leverage he hoped to employ in bending the General Assembly to his will regarding the tangential issue of unpopular taxes and fees. The governor could just sit and stew for a while.
You can find the anonymous A.B.’s “QUERIES” in the February 7, 1771 issue of the Maryland Gazette starting here: https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4800/sc4872/001281/html/m1281-1219.html
Glenn E. Campbell
HA Senior Historian
Comments