Thank you, Barbara, for taking time to share some of Hening's writings with
the list -- very interesting, and from very valuable and expensive sources.
Wye, even the word 'sucker' must be clearly defined before the subject term
can be appropriately understood.  I understand now that while there were
stalk and leaf suckers that grew at upper areas of tobacco plants after they
were 'topped' of seed-producing flowers (which today's tobacco writings
address), the suckers that grew from cut stalks or plant roots after the
original plant was harvested were ones that could be surreptitiously tended
for greater production -- and these 'seconds' were potentially very damaging
to the reputation of Virginian tobacco quality.

I wonder whether this 'anti-seconds' law was one of those affected by the
Virginia Inspection Acts of 1730, as discussed within this link:
http://www.tobacco.org/History/colonialtobacco.html

It is also worthwhile to be reminded about the value of tobacco as a type of
colonial currency, in addition to its being a valuable export.  While people
commonly bartered with tobacco prior to 1730, it was the Inspection Acts
that initiated 'transfer notes' which were issued for smaller than hogshead
quantities of tobacco turned into a government warehouse, at somewhat
discounted value.  These notes could be sold or tendered as payment of rent,
purchases, debts, fees and taxes.  People with occupations unrelated to
tobacco planting often grew their own small patches in their spare time --
the small quantities of cured tobacco leaves being carried 'loose' or in
bundles to the warehouses for receipt of these very handy and valuable
'transfer notes.'  The smaller quantities, and residual less-than-hogshead
amounts left by large planters, were combined into hogshead shipments at the
warehouse and shipped at the full hogshead value.  The bearer of a transfer
note was entitled to claim a certain amount of 'transfer tobacco' at random
from the warehouse's stock of loose or bundled transfer tobacco at that
time.  Large planters with hogshead-quantity deliveries to a warehouse were
issued 'tobacco notes' that specified the weight and type of tobacco.  This
leads me to suspect there were a few who tried to profit from speculation
and a note-exchange of sorts as the value of tobacco fluctuated due to
variations in demand and from factors that affected production.

"It neither supplied food to him nor fodder to his beasts; it could not
yield him roof-timber nor firewood.  He had to shelter, watch over, nurse it
at every stage of growth and curing, for never was there a more tender plant
or one subject to a greater variety of plagues, diseases, and disasters."
-- J. Thomas Scharf (I have his "History of Maryland: ...".)

Neil McDonald


----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara Vines Little" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: "sucker hunting"


> See
> Hening 4:87--9 November 1720
> "Whereas, the tending and making of seconds, is greatly prejudicial to the
> staple of tobacco, and the laws made for preventing thereof, have been
> evaded, & the penalties therein given against persons who shall be
convicted
> of tending seconds, are found insufficient to restrain persons from such
> undue practices: . . . That whosoever shall weed, top, hill, succour,
house,
> cure, strip, or pack any seconds, suckers, or slips of tobacco, or cause
or
> suffer the same to be done, on or upon any plantation . . ."
>
>
> Hening 4:507-9
>
> "Whereas, at a general assembly, begun and held at the capitol, the twenty
> first day of May, in the third year of his majesty's reign, an act was
made,
> for repealing the Act, for the better and more effectual improving the
> Staple of Tobacco: and for the better execution of the Laws now in force
> against tending Seconds; and for the further prevention thereof; which,
> among other things doth require, That where the constables in their
> perambulations directed by the said act, shall find or discover any slips
or
> suckers growing upon any plantation, above the height of nine inches and
the
> owner or overseer shall refuse to cut up and destroy them, the constables
> shall cause the same to be cut up and destroied: [This act eliminated the
> requirement that the seconds be cut up and destroyed]
>
> The law is further explained in Hening 5:438--9, essentially it was
intended
> to prohibit the tending/growing of a second crop of leaves from the same
> stalk --thus limiting the amount of tobacco produced. The "seconds" were
> grown from the "suckers" which appeared following an initial cutting.
>
> The following presents a reasonably complete picture of  "Sucker-hunting"
> Hening 6:51--3
> "Whereas the tending and curing tobacco slips and suckers, for the making
of
> seconds, is greatly prejudicial to the people of this colony, by debasing
> the quality and depreciating the value thereof. . . . That if any person
> shall weed, top, hill, sucker, house, cure, strip, or pack any seconds,
> suckers, or slips of tobacco, or shall cause or suffer the same to be done
> upon any plantation to hism or her belonging, or under hsi or her
direction
> or mangement, he or she shall forfeit and pay five hundred pounds of
> tobacco, for every person employed thereon in that year; . . . Provided
> nevertheless, That if any plants shall be destroyed by tempest, or
> otherwise, when growing, and thrown away without being cured, or housed,
any
> person mya tend seconds, or slips upon the same stalks, without being
liable
> to the penalty aforesaid. . . . That every constable within this colony
> shall yearly, between the last day of July, and the tenth day of August,
and
> between the twentieth day of August, and the tenth day of September, and
at
> such other times as he shall think proper, repair to all the fields and
> places whereon tobacco shall be planted or tended, within his precinct,
and
> diligently view the same, to discover whether any slips, or suckers, shall
> be turned out and tended, from the stalks, from which any tobacco plant
hath
> been before cut, or taken; and if he shall find any such, he shall make
> information thereof to the next court held for his county: . . . And that
> for encouraging the constables to preform their duty, one pound of nett
> tobacco shall be levied on every tithable in each county, and distributed
to
> the several constables, in proportion to the number of tithables in their
> respective precincts;
>
> While I did not do a complete literature search this time, the first
> reference I have found is in Hening 1:399 [March, 1655--6] at which time
the
> informant was paid one-half of the penalty.
>
> Barbara
>
> Barbara Vines Little, CG
> PO Box 1273
> Orange, VA 22960
> phone/fax 540-832-3473 (evenings)
> [log in to unmask]
>
> CG is a service mark of the Board for Certification of
> Genealogists®, used under license by board-certified associates who meet
> genealogical competency standards prescribed for those programs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: macbd1 <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] "sucker hunting"
>
>
> >  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.
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>

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