Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1882-12-29
Agricultural.


WeniN 10 senator NuNtAuRs
We trust our correspondent, who modestly
signs only the initial letter &C" will pardon
us for the use which we make of his full name
We have heretofore given him credit for in
PRODUCING the bill in relation to commercial
fertilizers, and for his efficiency in aiding to
perfect il and secure its passage. Having
compared this law when it was under consd-
Grafton in the legislature with similar laws
in other states, we are convinced that as far
as the prevention of fraud in the sale of fer
tilzers is concerned it is the most effective
law that has been enacted in any state. The
objection to it does not lie in this direction,
and the Senator entirely misconceives our
meaning in the sentence which he quotes
eve believe that not one manufacturer in
ten will comply with the conditions Of the
law" This is exactly what we believe and
what we expect to have reason to believe
as long as we believe anything but
but the meaning which our correspondent
seems to put upon this assertion new
err occurred to us. No reference to the sale
of fertilizers in violation of the law was in
tended. OF this no opinion was expressed
except in substance what has already been
given in this article, that is, that our law
might be more eFectual in preventing fraud
in the manufacture and sale of fertilizers than
the laws for this purpose in any other state.
The writer is still further from understand
ing us when he says ut also reflects on
the secretary of the Board of Agriculture,
who is required by the law to take at least
three samples in each year of each brand of
fertilizers kept for sale in the state and have
the Same analysed and the result published"
Not at all. Nothing could be further from
our intention. No man would be more GER
tain to perform the duties that the law re-
quires of him, faithfully and well. than DIR.
Hiram A. Cutting, the worthy Secretary of
the Board of Agriculture and no man in the
state is more competent to do it. There is
nothing in all this in the least inconsistent
with tho opinion which we expressed, that
not one in ten of all the manufacturers of
commercial fertili zers will comply with the
conditions of the law. It is not meant that
nine.tenths of them will violate the law, but
that nine-tenths of all the manufacturers of
commercial fertilizers will never file the So
600 bond with the state treasurer nor take out
a $50 license for each brand. The fact is
that as yet, by for the larger share of them
make no sales of any account within the state
The manufacture of commercial fertilizers is
growing business, and competition in the
trade is each year increasing. In 1850 the
business was but just beginning though at
that time there were thirty. one manufactures
in the Middle states and twelve in the New
England states. The census of 1870 showed
that the business had increased six fold in the
preceding decade. There were then one hun
bred and twenty.six establishments manufac.
turing fertilizers. The census of 1880 is not
yet published, and if it were it would be
about three years old, and perhaps the quaint
ty of commercial fertilizers manufactured has
nearly doubled since it was taken. There has
certainly been very great increase in the
amount manufactured, and it is probable that
the quantity made and sold in 1883 will ex-
coed by far that of any previous year. 1t will
be safe to estimate the number of establish
ments manufacturing commercial fertilizers
within reach of the markets of this state for
the year 1888 at not less than five hundred,
and the number of different brands at not
less than one thousand. How many of these
manufacturers will pay $50 for a license for
each brand and file with the treasurer of the
state the bond for S., 200? Possibly twenty
Probably not SO many.
A few large manufacturers like the one re-
ferred to by Mr.. Cutting, who stated that his
sales in this state the past year were over
400 tons, will, of course cheerfully pay the
license and file the bond, and would prefer
10 Al
or even two hundred dollars and the bond
fifty thousand, for very obvious reasons. The
tendency of the license fee and tho bond is to
diminish competition. A manufacturer of
fertilizers in Chicago may have from this
state a single order one in Buffalo, two or
three; one in Baltimore, three or four; one
in Philadelphia, half dozen one in New
York, an order for two or three tons; others
for four, five, eight, or ten tons, and the
same may be said of manufacturers in many
other towns and cities. Can these manufac-
turers comply with the law ? Another may
wish to send two or three tons to an agent in
this state to be sold for introduction and trial.
Will the license fee and the bond tend to en-
courage such competition?
We notice the published analysis of fer
tilizer, at the Connecticut experiment station,
that contained more than twice the usual
amount of salable phosphoric acid, and it was
sold at low price. We are not aware that
this brand has ever been offered for sale in
Vermont. If it should be ordered here in
small quantities for introduction the amount
of the license would have to be added to price,
or the maker would incur loss in starting a
competition with the well established though
less valuable brands.