Tobacco plants, when 'ripe' at mid-season, were 'topped' to remove their
seed-producing 'flowers.'  This caused soil nutrients used by the plants for
seed production to be redirected toward growth of larger and fuller leaves.
A side-effect of 'topping' was the new growth of 'suckers' from the stalk
and axels (joints) of the original leaf stems, these sucker-shoots
attempting to replace the seed-producing flowers lost from the topping
action.  Growth of from seven to ten suckers per plant was common, often
requiring a second 'pass' through a field about 7-10 days after the first
pass of sucker removal.  Finding and removing these suckers was time
consuming work.  None of my books or on-line history sources speak of
Virginian laws which prohibited the growing of suckers; it seems that
removal of as many suckers as practicable was a good business practice.
However, such a law may have been intended to upgrade practices of some
planters who tended to minimize their costs at the loss of quality, thereby
being detrimental to the reputation of Virginian tobacco -- a highly
competitive product within the colonies, especially between Virginia and
Maryland.

Such a law may have originally been part of a series of colonial laws passed
after over-production of tobacco glutted English markets about 1660 and
dropped prices so low that colonists barely survived, and when many
colonists attempted to counter low prices by exporting 'trash' tobacco or by
manipulating the size of tobacco shipping containers called 'hogsheads.'
These colonial laws, passed over a period of 50 years or more, included
attempts to reduce and control tobacco production, to standardize the size
of the hogshead, to prohibit shipments of bulk tobacco and to prevent the
exportation of trash tobacco.  However, enforcement of such laws was
impractical and it was not until 1730 when Virginia passed its Inspection
Acts, and other colonies followed, that tobacco trade laws indeed were
generally accepted and enforced.  "The Inspection Acts established public
warehouses with official inspectors and required planters to transport every
hogshead of tobacco in the colony to a warehouse for inspection. The
inspectors were empowered to break open each hogshead, remove and burn any
trash, and issue tobacco notes to the owner specifying the weight and kind
of tobacco."
Re: http://www.tobacco.org/History/colonialtobacco.html
and other sites from Google searches.

So...was a 'sucker-hunter' the field worker who looked for and removed
suckers, a county appointee who counted the number of tobacco plants grown
by individual planters or a colonial government appointee who inspected
intended shipments of tobacco at a government warehouse, looking for
suckers, 'trash' material, and other measures of overall quality?  Barbara
Little's knowledgeable posting indicates the middle option is correct for
the specific purpose of Jim Watkinson, to which I agree since the record in
question is from Orange **County**, VA.  However, the term 'sucker hunter'
seems to be a misnomer for 'plant-counter' in this case, unless the county
appointee also looked for an excessive number of suckers and recorded such
(this could only be done after a field had ripened and been topped and
suckered the final time) -- but suckers were also hunted at the Inspection
Warehouses after 1730.  This leads me to suspect the name sucker-hunter was
a general term, loosely applied to all of the above and other possibilities
as well including a humorous one or two.  Btw, tobacco was nearly half of
the total exported commodities from the colonies in 1750, amounting to about
60 million pounds (weight) to England.

With highest regards for Barbara Little and all, I'm simply a retired
engineer and wannabe historian/genealogist.

Neil McDonald
[log in to unmask]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara Vines Little" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: "sucker hunting"


> Eric is correct, the law limited both the number of tobacco plants that
> could be grown "per worker in the ground," i.e., tithable---whether white
or
> slave and denied the growing of suckers or sideshoots because they
produced
> an inferior grade of tobacco. Constables were appointed by the county to
go
> to each farm/plantation and count the number of tobacco plants; they were
> paid a flat rate per tithable and you will find these listed in the
> (usually ) October court list of items paid. Some of these lists survive
> among the county loose papers and are usually erroneously labeled
"tithable
> lists" and filed as such. Tithables were created in the spring; tobacco
> lists were created in the summer. I have seen a few that actually list the
> total number of tobacco plants.
>
> One of the lists for Orange County by a Hancock is acctually labeled
> "Hancock, his sucker hunting list."
>
> Barbara
>
> Barbara Vines Little, CG
> PO Box 1273
> Orange, VA 22960
> phone/fax 540-832-3473 (evenings)
> [log in to unmask]

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Watkinson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:12 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: "sucker hunting"
> >
> >
> > Just ran across the following from Orange Co, VA, 1751:  "The Pet[ition]
> > of William Donaught Humbly Begs that your Worships will allow me my
> > Tobacco for Sucker Hunting Last year according to the list I sent your
> > worships . . ."  "Sucker hunting"???
> >
> >
> >
> > Any clues from the learned listers?
> >
> >
> >
> > Please pardon the cross-post.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim Watkinson
> >
> >
> >
> > James D. Watkinson, Ph.D.
> >
> > Archives
> >
> > Library of Virginia
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > 804.692.3804

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html