Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1889-06-03
fruit to ray the farmer.

r. WVUt vs. Wc rNcppeSt ptun U tMppOcfnl /
thc soil Of our Jd,ms9
Mr.. Collins said his experience was that
he could keep up his land cheaper l,y using
phosphstcs and selling the hay raised NJ
$3.50 and si4 per ton. II did not pay 10
raise grain, feed il to cattle and sell the
cattle at the price now current. lie used
as a phosphate South Carolina ruk, which
he bought at $3.50 per ton. lie used $50
pounds to the acre for corn and could raise
as good corn as any farmer who used barn
yard manure. The soil cannot be helped
by feeding grain into our cattle sheep
will improve the land and he never had
anything on his land that paid as well as
sheep. lie received o cents per pound for
lambs, they averaged 81 pounds, and. in
addition he got cents for the wool and the
average was six pounds. sheep will cat
after the cattle and eat what no other ami
NAL will. Lime in his judgment IL not a
fertilizer pnfii IL comes in contact with
,s6rio vegetable matter.
Mr.. Miller believed that clover was the
cheapest fertilizer and he believed i'm blowing
down the clover fields.
Dr. Roebuck gave his rccollections Of
several sterile fields i'm his neighborhood
which yielded good crops after the clover
had been plowcd down.
Mr.. Brosius said tho question of raising
hay and selling IL involved another, the
taking of substance from your farm; cattle
feeding has been one of l.ancaster's great
industries and farmers are 10th To give IL
up, although II did not pay the past year.
Hon montd the proposed prohibition
amendment affect The agricultural interest
| Of the farmers ~ Lancaster county,
This question WAS referred To Vim. II.
Brosius, who has been an earnest advocate
| on the stump for the amendment.
He begun his answer by saying the
| question was novel one for discussion in n
farmers society, but IT was an important
! one. He next quoted from the circulars
| and posters sent out by the anti-prohibi-
tionists and commented on the statistics
| which apparently showed from the liouor
mems standpoint that tho farmer would be
injured by the adoption of the amendment.
| SO far ~ his Judgment went the farmer
would he benefited by tho adoption of the
amendment. lie took for an illustration
n bushel of corn. This he said would max q
four gallons of whisky and when put on
the market at retail, would bc about 300
drinks, which at cents per drink would
make so. Upon the principle that the
farmer takes his grain to the host mark ct
he must from the liquor mems standpoint
| convert IL into whisky, which Yields him
$40 per gallon.
The average drinker spends $40 per year
for rum, or cutsumes bushels of corn.
An ordinary family will consume SO worth
of meat in year. This $40 will represent
at least 30 bushels of corn, and ~ a matter
of argument farmers should bc for prohibi-
ton. because their grain brings less price
in whisky than otherwise ~ shown by the
above. In conclusion ho assorted that il
half the money spent for rum was put into
the commerce of the county tho farmer
would lie greatly benefited.
pr. Brobst argued that the amendment
was against the interest of the farmer
The taxpayers are the honest yeon,anry,
not the rummics, and any ono who max cs
the assertion that IL costs more for the prose
cution and maintenance of criminals, foi
oiienses committed, as the result Of W whisn v
drinking, than IL received from the licens,
fec by the county, he states What he cannot
prove. In Michigan, Iowa, Massach,us 1 4
and other states prohibition has been q
failure. He admitted the evils of intcm.
perance, but was opposed to getting B,
temperance through the proposed amend
mcnt. The-@fh"t % states in the Unio
hat have lost in population are So callcc
4 prohibition states.
At this stage motion was made to stoI
any further argument of the question, In
il was defeated.
A motion made by Mr.. Collins to limi
tho speeches to five minutes and coniin
the argument strictly to the question pro
posed was adopted.
, Capt. Bricker said he would vote agains
. the amendment, hut II was the merest fool
. ishness To assert that the farmer would h.
, injured by the adol ton of the amendment
, II would neither hurt on help him.
Mr.. Bruckhart, former resident q
Kansas, gave his experience as an owner q
land in that state. lie owned n quarter sec
tion in the centre of the state. Its assessed
value was 500, and the tax on 1t was abou
five cents on the dollar. At the actua
, value of the land the tax rate was abou
seven mills.
, Dr. Koebuck asked whether tho tax rat
had been raised or lowered by the adoI
tion of the amendment, but this question
r Mr.. Bruckhart could not answer, he NJ
, owning the land prior to the adoption q
the prohibition amendment. lIis imprcs
sion was that the tax rate had not change
a for several years.
, Ddes the Ippication Of Phosphate Ledre
, Proht for fhc E1rHtcr'
! This question johnson Miller answcre
I by saying that while phosphate improve
: the land il len no profit TO the farmer. TIL
annual cost of phosphatcs was about 50 pc
acre, and il does not increase tho crop MOI
than il costs.
Levi =. Roist, Washington Hershey
James Collins, John Grossman and other
are of the same opinion.
TiiE EXHIBITS.
| Peter Nolertson of kissel Hill, who ha
made the cultivation of the silk worm
speciality, exhibited n large number q
/, | cocoons.
Levi :. Reist exhibited the following
Tulip poplar from North Carolina. six va
ricties of roses, persimmon twig from Mis-
souri, pawpaw bushes, twig of oak, vari,
gated grasses and evergreen twigs srI
, On account .of the next meeting comm
in the height of harvest, IL WAS decided 4
hold il at Lancaster city, in the societ
rooms, Eshlemans building, on the firr
, Monday of July.