The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-04-03
WHAT OUR PHOSPH tTES COST TIE
ENGLISH FARMERS.
Screw I~"sc In rrice,-WI,nt is the Mat
ter. HANNAH:
GNrENNIELE Cnl.srY

GKEENVIELE COUSrY.
ME. EDITOR: One Of tic many ques-
tiono which the late controversy between
the farmers and the phosphate conpa-
MES suggested was hat price is asked
III Liverpool for Son;h Carolina phos-
plate rock, and what do the English
farmers have 10 pay COR the manufactured
sriic'c? 1t being i'll Tie writer's power to
satisfy himself and others interested with
him, more or less, in having light thrown
upon this price OF commercial fertilizer
question, he wrote some weeks ago to
friend in England king one or two
Questions, the replies to which, given in
the letter copied below, may be Of in
terest to some Of the readers of the Req.
'<fer. Tie letter is from Mcssrs. II. x
1. Proctor, manufacturers Of special ma
nnres, Bristol, England
The price of South Carolina rock is
about 5js. CID to Cos. (Sl5) in Liver
pool. The .nufactlIrtd article varies
very much III rice, and can be bought
at 10 $50 to 60. los. Od. t$32j per ton
as far ~ the present writer under
stands this discomfort Of the farmers
with the high price Of manufactured
inanurcs, hitherto ruling, it amounts to
little more than this: An uncomfortable
consciousness that the profit on their use
at these riccs has been something more
than questionable. Hence all these in
4ulries at home and abroad, the prevail
ing conviction being that in some way
or other, Il fertilizer could be placed on
the market having the South Carolina
rock AS its basis 1T Il price very material
ly less than that hitherto demanded.
| without one iOta of diminutiun in its fer
tilizing properties.
South Carolina phosphate rock selling
probably for shipping purposes. at about
81 or s. per ton, clearly indicates the
cost Of the raw material to the South
Carolina manufacturers Of the CONNER
cMl article.
In Liverpool, that cost being 100 pcr
cent. $l5-how is il that tho
manufactured article there ranges from
SD to S'2 per ton only, but here i, is so
strenuousiy argued that its delivery at
such prices would be ruinous to the laau
ufacturer?
If at 81 or IS the miners of South Car
olina rock realize satisfactory profit on
their capital and labor, and the pur-
chasers in Liyerp, OF this rock at III
or SO can realize a satisfactory profit on
their article" manufactured from it ut
$25 to S;'2 Il ton, it seems to ordinary in
| tclligcnce that in South Carolina $25 per
ton should be representative rather of
the "top Of the market" than of a price
which Woud mean ,,o,t sar;,,,, H., !, .
the manufacturer.
1t is unfortunate that this question was
allowed to assume the appearance of n
strike on the part Of the farmers. enpen-
dcring bitterness between manufacturer
and consumer. The whole matter should
be very easily adjusted and can be with
out any sacrifice Of interest on either
side. If the proposed advance in prices
OF few dollars per ton really meant for
tho farmers demand upon them which.
to have acceded to, would have reduced
their profits from fertilizers to nil. if not
little lower, it is clearly evident that
! those profits were so near nil before as to
justify, and more than justify, their
present attitude Of painstaking searc,,
into this matter; and, in full view Of the
apparently notorious fact that the Eng
lish utiizer of South Carolina phosphatcs
can provide the English agriculturist
with an acceptable fertilizing article"
at $50 per ton, realizing about 81 or IS
less profit per ton than it is manifest can
be realized by the South Carolina manu-
factnrer, is it not possible, very probable.
OR, rather, clearly certain, that in the
near future the honest farmers interests
and the honest fertilizer manufacturers
interests will be reconciled and this little
chasm of misunderstanding be finally
closed?
In i word. if South Carolina rock sell
ing in Liverpool at SIS ton is convert
ed into fair profit-paying fertilizer Mt a
cost of $40 ton, the same rock in
Charleston selling at $3.50 per ton smi-
larly converted should certainly not de-
mand for such conversion more than
$50 per ton.
Is there, or IS there not, logic in thi,
presentation of the case? Yes or no!
No harm, and possibly some little good
may result from free discussion of the
matter. III. f., in Columbia Register.