Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1882-05-10
Bradley Fertilizer Co.'s Suit Against
Secretary Cutting.

Mr.. Editor Our attention has been called to
an article published in the VERMONT WATcHMAS
of May Sd, headed Suit against Secretary Cut
ting" in which our motives for bringing the suit
against this gentleman are greatly misconstrued.
Through ignorance of the facts, we trust, on the
part of the writer who suggests that are trying
to "Bulldoze the Board OF Agriculture OF Yer
mont" as well as the Vermont people In general
but with what end in view he does not state. In
justice to ourselves, therefore. we feel called
upon to state briefly our reasons forsueng DIR.
Cutting, that the farmers and people of Vermont
may judge for themselves whether or not we
were justified i'll our action, and whether or
DR.. Cutting were trying to "buldoze" the YER
mont people.
About six weeks ago we learned from various
sources that Dr. Cutting had, at certain agricultural
meetings held In the state, made statements about
our phosphate which were calculated to do US
great injury, coming, as they did from the sec
rotary OF the Board OF Agriculture of Vermont es-
tablished by the state for the advancement OF its
farming interests. Following these rumors, we
received written statements, signed by thoroughly
responsible and honest men, who had attended
the lectures alluded TO, setting forth the allega-
tions about our phosphate, said by them to have
been made by DR.. Cutting, which were 20 aston
ishing In their falsty that could hardly believe
that any man. in his right senses, could have ut
tered them even in conversation with another, to
say nothing of making them openly before audi
ences Of intelligent farmers. Knowing the inhu
ence that man in DR.. Cuttings position must ex-
ercse among the farmers we determined to
investigate these reports thoroughly, that we
might arrive, II possible, at the facts; and In or
der to have positive and undeniabe proofs at our
command before taking any action In the matter
we went In person TO the towns In which DIR. Cut
ting had delivered these lectures The results OF
these Investigations were even more astonishing
than the written statements had been. We OBJ
tanned from many thoroughly reliable and re-
sponsbe men, who had attended the lectures in
question, the most conclusive testimony that DIR.
Cutting had made in substance the following
atafA in fVvn Inn cd
pounds OF bone meal and three gallons OF sui
phurc acid would constitute all that there of
value In one ton Of Bradley's XL Phosphate, rs
Bradley's phosphate was composed mostly Of sand
and weed, with small amount OF fish cake TO
make 1t stink thathe had been down to Boston and
seen Bradley teams hauling sand and sea-weed TO
put into his phosphate that he asked Bradley what
he put the sea-weed In for, and Bradley replied,
"For the humus -; he then asked Bradley what
he put In the sand for, and he replied, " For the
slick -; that he then asked what he put the fish
cake In for, and Bradley said TO make II stink as
| the Vermont farmers would not buy 1t unless 1t
SUNK" that anyone by going down to Boston
could see Bradley's teams hauling seaweed and
| sand TO put in his phosphate"
We hardly deem 1t necessary to deny the allega-
| ton that we use sea-weed or sand in our fer
tilizers, but 1t may perhaps be pertinent TO say
here that we do not remember OF ever having had
| the pleasure OF even meeting DR., Cutting And
we find II stated In the article referred To that Dr.
| Cutting now denies making any allusion TO Brad
| leys or any fertilizer other than " Grafton"
unless by slip of the tongue" II will DO read
| lily understood how ruinous TO our business are
such statements rs the above when made by a
man holding high position In the board OF agri-
culture OF the state, and whether we should allow
| such false statements 10 pass unnoticed and I'M
| challenged. After twenty-one years OF hard work
| in establishing reputation for manufacturing
| the best commercial fertilizers in the United
states, we will leave TO our many friends and pat
| rons among the farming community OF Vermont
10 decide for themselves while 10 the United States
| court we leave the awarding Of the damages
which we have sustained by Secretary Cuttings
| Misrepresentation,
As far as the board OF agriculture being respon-
sbe for the statements made by one of their
number, AS suggested by the writer OF the article
| In question, we have no reason to suppose that
any other member Of the board OF agriculture has
| conspired 10 ruin our business.
1t has been intimated that one OF our reasons
for sueing Dr. Cutting was because he advised the
farmers 10 make their own fertilizers This insin-
uation Is absurd, Home made fertilizers have
been tried over and over again, but seldom twice
| by the same parties. We care not how strongly
DIR. Cutting advocates them or any other fertil-
izers but when he openly attacks our manufac-
lures and our business integrity we shall defend
them at all hazards, and shall seek redress for
injuries received from false representations at
the courts Of law
BRADLEY fERrnIzER COMPANY.
Boston, May o, 1882.