Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-07-20

what a Dealer Has to say About It

What a Dealer Has to say About IT.
Editor Morning Neers: We notice in
vevr issue of yesterday your CORE
spondent ssChatham" gives the text Of the
substitute for the cray fertilizer BILL"
This is a savage bill on the fertilizer trade,
and should it pass few dealers will dare
to sell their goods on credit. This bill
opens the door to and invites endless liti-s
cation. The farmers, in the main, may
be honest. but there are thousands who
buy fertilizers on credit that would take
shelter under such law to get rid of pay
ing for their guano. The result will be
that the dealers will sell for cash in hand,
which NAV be best IN the end, but will in
the meantime be very hard on many
farmers who cannot pay cash.
The inspection laws are of no use if this
bill becomes a Law, and should be repealed.
We regard the inspection law as admins
tered great fraud upon the public. 1t
does not protect either dealer or consum-
er. The trainers of it, no doubt, intended
it to protect both, but the law is defective.
No inspector can so execute IL as 10 90
full Justice to all. How do the inspectors
inspect guanO? A cargo arrives in bulk,
and is put in store; the inspector is nOti-
fed. and takes sample of, say, 800 tons;
collects $3.50, and delivers 5000 tags to the
dealer to be attached one to each bag
when it is sold. He has to trust
to the dealers integrity to put
into the bags the same article
that has been inspected. How
easy it would be for the dealer to put up
worthless material in bags and use these
tags, Then why make the farmer pay 90
cents per ton, thus adding to the price,
when he is not in the least protected by
said inspection. Suppose the fertilizer is
in bags. the inspector takes samples, say
from every tenth bag. How easylt would
be for a dishonest dealer to empty the
bags and mix their contents
with worthless stuff and re-
sack it and sell the mixture with the in
spectOr's badge of inspection. We say
that the law is defective and cannot be
executed. Repeal it and pass new one
that will protect both at very small
cost. We would suggest the passage OF
law such as exists in North Carolina,
requiring each dealer to pay mod
crate license tax, say from $500
to $500. for each brand sold; require
the dealer to print on each bag
guaranteed analysis of his goods. and
attach a tag, if you please, saying tax
paid Then make it the duty of the Com
missioner of Agriculture to appoint say
two inspectors for the State, whose duty
it is to 90 over the State without notice
during the selling season and take
samples from stock found in the country
in the hands of dealers as well as con-
sumers, and forward same to the chemist
for examination, and if they are found not
to be as represented, then condemn the
stock and make the seller liable for
misdemeanor, and punish him according
ly.
Such law would protect both dealer
and consumer, for no dealer would dare
sell an article not fairly represented
when he was liable to be picked up at
any moment. and the cost to the public
would not be five cents ton, as it would
not require an army of inspectors or the
printing of millions of tags that are now
absolutely worthless. We want a string
gent inspection law that will protect both
dealer and farmer at the least possible
cost to the consumer, for he undoubtedly
has it to pay. Such law as we sug-
gest, with license tax of $500
for each brand sold, would enable the
State TO pay two inspectors Oh unln3
peachable character liberal salaries and
the State Chemist $4,000 year. 1t would
reduce the number of brands sold in the
State so that the chemist could carefully
examine every brand sold. Under the
present law the chemist gets $4,000, and
there are over $50 different brands sold in
the State. No chemist can analyze
full justice to the public. With
an army of assistants he might
possibly go through the work, but even
then there would be no certainty in the
results, for he has only about 12O days to
do the work in. With the law, we sug-
gest the number of brands would be
greatly reduced, which would enable the
chemist to do his full duty to the subject,
which. under the present law, he scannOt
do, no matter how faithful he may be, for
no chemist can properly examine in one
season $50 samples and do his duty to the
planter. Several samples of the same
brand should be examined at different
times during the season. The past sea-
son $50 inspections were made and only
44S analyses reported
There is one dealer that sells in Georgia
10 brands, all about the same goods, or
said to be so. He would reduce his num-
Der of brands to two or three under the
law we have suggested. We give these
scattering suggestions for what they are
worth. DEALER.