The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-04-03
WHAT OUR PHOSPHATES COST TIE
ENGLISH FARMERS.
Screw Loose In Priccs-What is the Mat
ter, Hannah?
GREESvIELE COUNTY.

GREESvIELE COUNTY.
Mr.. EDITOR: One Of the many ques-
tions which the late controversy between
the farmers aud the phosphate compa-
MES suggested was: What price is asked
in Liverpool for South Carolina phos-
phate rock, and what do the English
farmers have to pay for the manufactured
article? 1t being in the 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 asking 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 Reg
lister. The letter is from Mcssrs. H. &
T. Proctor, manufacturers of special ma
nnres, Bristol, England:
The price of South Carolina rock is
about SOS. ($l4) to Cos. (Sl5) in Liver
pool. The manufactured article varies
very much in price, and eau be bought
at s5 ($25) to Is. los. 0d. ($32) per ton.
AS far as the present writer under
stands this discomfort Of the farmers.
with the high price Of manufactured
manures," hitherto ruling, it amounts to
little more than this: An uncomfortable
consciousness that the profit on their use
at these prices has been something moro
than questionable. Hence all these in
quiries at home and abroad, the prevail
ing conviction being that, in some way
or other, u fertilizer could be placed on
the market having the South Carolina
rock as its basis at price very material
ly less than that hitherto demanded,
without one iota Of diminution in its fer
tilizing properties.
South Carolina phosphate rock selling
probably for shipping purposes, at about
81 or IS per ton, clearly indicates the
cost of the raw material to the South
Carolina manufacturers of the CONNER
cial article.
In Liverpool, that cost being 100 per
cent. higher-$l5-how is it that the
manufactured article there ranges from
SOS to $32 per ton only, but here it is so
strenuously argued that its delivery at
such prices would be ruinous to the man
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 Liverpool of this rock at $l4
or Sl5 can realize satisfactory profit on
their "article" manufactured from it at
$25 to S32 ton, it seems to ordinary in
telligence that in South Carolina $25 per
ton should be representative rather of
the stop of the market" than OF a price
which would mean most serious loss TO
the manufacturer.
1t is unfortunate that this question was
allowed to assume the appearance of
strike on the part of the farmers, engen-
dering 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 a few dollars per ton really meant for
the farmers demand upon them which,
to have acccded 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 search
into this matter and, in full view of the
apparently notorious fact that the Eng
lish utilizer of South Carolina phosphatcs
can provide the English agriculturist
with an acceptable fertilizing "article"
at $25 per ton, realizing about 81 or s.
less profit per ton than it is manifest can
be realized by the South Carolina manu-
facturer, 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 word, if South Carolina rock sell
ing in Liverpool at SIS q ton is convert
ed into fair proft-paying fertilizer at a
cost of $40 ton, the same rock in
Charleston selling at $3.50 per ton simi-
larly converted should certainly not de-
mand for such conversion more than
$3.50 per ton.
Is there, or is there not, logic in this
presentation of the case2 Yes or no?
No harm, and possibly some little good,
may result from free discussion Of the
matter. III E., in Columbia Register.