Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1882-12-22
NIX AND RECORD AND FARMER FRIDAY o. 1882
The New Fertilizer Ma,,.

In your issue Of the Sth inst, under the
above head, are some structures on the law,
and also adverse criticism from the Montpe-
lier Freeman. The objection Of the Freeman
is that the law requires license of $50 for
each brand The object Of the license is to
defray the expense Of the analyses required
by the law. Let us suppose a manufacturer
to have ten different brands Of fertilizer. The
expense Of the analysis as required by law
would probably be not less than $500; con-
sequently, if the license was but $50 the
state would lose $3.50. 1t will, l think, be
apparent to any one that a manufacturer max
ing several different brands should pay
larger license than the manufacturer of a sim
gle brand. Your article objects TO the $1,000
bond. Now, this is like an official bond and
simply requires a man to be honest. In the
original bill it was $40, 600, but was reduced
to $4,000 to meet this objection. The objec-
ton was not considered q valid one, but it
was thought $4,000 would answer the purpose
us we'll Is it any hardship to require man
ufaclurer to give a bond which requires him
to deal honestly with the public? If there
are any manufacturers of fertilizers whose
business reputation is so poor that they cannot
give $4,000 bond with sureties satisfactory
to our state treasurer, then We want to exclude
all such from doing business in the state.
Your article further says: eve believe that
not one in ten Of the manufacturers will COM
ply with the conditions Of the law" This is
poor compliment to the farmers of the state
if it means that they will submit to imposi-
ton rather than enforce the law, and it also
reflects on the secretary of the Board Of Ag-
riculture, who is required 10y the law to take
at least three samples in each year of each
brand of fertilizer kept for sale in the state,
and have the same analysed and the result
published 1t is hardly probable that the sec
rotary will fail to perform his duty, when such
failure subjects him TO a fine Of S1OOO and
il he does his duty, aud the manufacturer
violates the law the latter forCeits to the state
$1,000, TO be recovered by an action on the
bond, and it is made the duty of the state
treasurer to prosecute the same to final judg
ment. With these provisions it is difficult to
see how any dishonest manufacturer can es-
cape. Now, in regard to the probable effect
OF the law on small dealers not one word Of
COHpldlhI VI oPpo9l'Ipu ""7 uo"A" ilOHi 'Hl7
class while the bill WAS under consideration,
and it was not pressed TO a vote until the last
night of the session, being purposely delayed
and public hearings had by the joint commit
tees on agriculture of the Senate and House
at different times, in order to give manufac-
turors and all others interested al opportuui-
| ty to be heard that tho bill might be perfect
ed so as to do no injustice to either mauufac-
turer or dealer, and at the same time protect
the farmers of the state.
Let me say in closing thutno manufacturer
objected to either the bond or license, and one
manufacturer said the liceuso was a small
matter, as it would amount to but little more
than three cents per ton, he having sold over
| 400 tons in the state the past year C.