Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1882-05-03
Suit Against Secretary Cutting.

Our readers will remember the note from
Mr.. ]. c. Thompson of Washington, Yer
mont, to us some two months ago, in regard
to DR.. Cuttings lecture upon fertilizers.
Mr.. Thompson reported DR.. Cutting as say
ing that barrel of bone meal and three
gallons of sulphuric acid would make
fertilizer equal to any ton of commercial
fertilizer that could be bought. In our COM
ments upon Mr.. Thompsons note we spoke
of the way public speakers are apt to be
misunderstood, and expressed our belief
that DIR. Cutting had not made his state
ment in such an unqualified way as he had
been understood by our correspondent. DIR.
Cutting wrote in reply that he had been mis-
understood, that he did not denounce all
phosphates, as he knew that some are pure /;
that he referred to the bogus and fraudulent
fertilizers that had been thrust upon the
market, and especially to the so-called
Grafton Fertilizer" which consisted sim
ply of pulverized stone.
1t will surprise the farmers of the state to
learn that the Bradley Fertilizer Company
of Boston has sued the secretary of our
Board of Agriculture for damages to the
amount of $4,000, on account of these lec-
lures upon fertilizers which, in his official
capacity, he delivered in different parts of
the state during the past winter. We saw
quite number of the reports of these lec-
lures which were published, and we do not
remember seeing in them an allusion to
Bradley's or any other except the Grafton
fertilizer DR.. Cutting denies making any
such allusion unless, by a slip of the tongue,
he may have some time substituted the word
" Bradley for Grafton aud he appeals to
the recollection of his hearers, and especially
of his colleagues on the Board of Agricul-
ture who were present at all of his lectures,
as to the truth of this statement.
Of course we do not know the character
of the evidence upon which the Bradley
Company has based the suit, but it would
seem that the real nature of DIR. Cutting g
statements, repeated so often and before sc
many people, could be readily substantiated
The Bradley Company may believe that
they have good grounds for their action, and
yet be mistaken. But if the future course OF
their action shall show that this proceeding
is simply an attempt to bulldoze the Yer
mont Board of Agriculture and its secretary
we believe that the farmers of Vermont
will act in such way as to convince the
plaintiffs in this suit that they have made 6
grievous mistake. If it shall be shown thai
Secretary Cutting made and repeated any
unjust allegations against the fertilizers o.
the Bradley Company, we do not see how
the members, any more than the secretary
can escape responsibility therefor. DR.. Cut
ting is their appointee, and they were pres
ent with him at the time of these lectures
If he assailed without proof any manufac
turers of fertilizers in amanner prejudicial +
their business interests, the board were cog
nizant of the fact, and if they did not pre-
test against and forbid such attacks the
must be considered as responsible for them
But we have not the slightest belief tina
any such state of facts exists. We thin
the result of this suit, if it is ever brough
to trial, will show that DIR. Cutting was, i
those lectures, faithfully, and to the best @
his ability, doing the duty which had bee
entrusted to him by the people for the d,
fense of their agricultural interests. Aud
this shall prove true, we believe that the Brat
ley Company will perceive decided fallin
off in the demand for their fertilizers in We
mont. Vermonters do not bulldoze worth
cent, and any attempt by outside parties
punish one of our state officers for doin
his duty will recoil severely. We are n,
shut up to single brand OF fertilizers. Othe
quite as good as those of the Bradley Cor
pany exist, and are for sale in our market
But what we need is an experiment static
which shall make and publish reliable anal
ses, that cannot be disputed, of all the fertili
ers, feeding stuffs, or other articles Of sin
lar nature offered for sale in the state. Eigl
thousand one hundred dollars is paid a
nually by the state treasurer to our sgricr
tural college. That college employs chez
ist, and, doing little else for agricultuI
. it should be willing to make these analyse
: 1t is within the power of the legislature
!; compel this to be done without further a
r preparation, and we hope that at its comil
, session measures will be taken to ensure
: least so much return for an expenditure th
has already exceeded 100000 without al
nercai uahla raiurn 10 the neonle of the alta