The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1890-06-27
BU1LER'S REJOfNlAIR.
A STATEMENT FROM THE COMMIS-
S!ONER OF AGRICULTURE.

S!ONtR OF AGRICULTURE.
His Answer to tho Charges Made By Can
| tnin Tillmap In Some OF his Recon;
Speeches.
Col A. j. Butler, Commissioner OF
Agriculture. has sent to the daily
papers of the State q roioindlcr TO Tie
statement made by Capt. B. R. Till
man. touching tho Departments, ut
Grccnvillo and other places, during
&C State canvass Eow i'll progfCss.
Col. Butler pronounces simply
false Capt. Tillmnns statemcrt that
"thc Bureau has made no honest ef-
fort to protect The farmcrf against
being swindled by buying guano be
;:sss not snfoiccd III SWI. 'i'ss iSs~a'' -
tions."
Capt. I'illman's third statement
that altogether the law is known to
be defective and the punishment in
adequate, no attempt has been made
Qy the Board or Commissioners TO
have it amended, except that the mat
ter was mentioned in one OF the De
partmcnt reports several years ago.
he likewise knows to be untrue, but
being more specific can be met in II
more positive manner. At my request
several bills were introduced in the
Legislature ut different times. Two
of these may be cited: One by Col.
f.. II. McIvcr at the session Of 1885.
which passed tho House and failed
III the Senate, (soc House journal.
session 1885. pages 12G. 1876, 175, 335
and 340.) and another ut the session
of 1887. introduced by Senator You
mans, but failcd in the Scnat-.
Col. Butler then declares that he
and the Department have made every
effort to punish tho sale of fraudulent
fertilizers, and that he, knowing the
defects i'll the law, after consultation
with Attorney General Miles, brought
the matter to the attention Of the
Legislature; that in 1886 Uhc year
cited by Capt Tillman) there were
but three defective brands out of
over 200 analysed. He says that in
1882 the makers of the Cuban Bird
guano lost between $4,000 and S3O,-
coo because the Departments analy-
Sos showed that article to have been
below standard and below guaranty.
He cites the case of Mr.. 9. Nj. Coving
ton CT Florence, who accepted one
fourth of the price of fertilizers exam
ined by the Department and found
deficient He says that the anal-ses,
have had ample; ar w62a ii0iu Nsir,f tu1.
sssslii iii al1ll = es1-
md 'weu,.s; b. :, W. Sita 'Ns.,dllStS 5
to Mr.. Cannon's statement, Col But
lcr says the deficient fertilizer was
never called to his attention. nor has
the sampler any, recollection of it.
"But Mr.. Connor fully and amply
iustifics the Department and the
in another way. He says:
No notice, however, was taken of the
same by tho Department, and Mr..
Bopes sent tho guano away, as he
was completely baycotted and could
not continue business. Why was
Mr.. Copos boycottcdl Simply, as
Mr.. Connor writes Capt. Tillman, be-
cause the Department italicized the
deficient guano. Was it no punish
mcnt to Mr.. Copes to be boycottcd
and have his business ruincds Was
it no injury to the manufacturers to
have their goods returned to them!
Capt. Tillman says that not ono far
NOR in fifty soos these publications.
Is AIr. Connor farmcrl If not, why
was Mr.. Copcs boycottcdi We know
that the operation and tho result of
our method of italicizing deficient
brands was as Mr.. Connor stated, but
we had no hope of proving it SO
clearly by Capt. Tillman or his wit
ncsscs.'
Col. Butler calls attention to the
fact that Mr.. Connor was q member
of the Legislature, and yet took nc
steps to improve the law.
The case of Mr.. S. w. Gardner,
Col. Butler declares, docs not fall
within tho law touching analyses of
fertilizers. That was q case of "short
weight not of deficiency. "This
charge is on n par with another made
some time since in tho presence ot
Mr.. j. T.. Tindal and Mr. w. A. An
crum. Captain Tillman then charged
similar failure to discharge my duty
because he had bought cotton seed
meal adultoratod with rosin and his
ncighbor had purchased cotton seed
meal adultorated with hulls At tho
time the charge was made Captain
Tillman knew that both lots had
been purchased in Georgia, and yet
he cndcavored to injurc tho Depart
ment by charge that he knew to bt
utterly unjust and untruc!"
$50 much for the certificates. II
should be noticed, however, that
these are dated May 81st, June 30
and June 9Th, ,respectivcly. All since
Capt. Tillman made his: charges a
Anderson. Therefore his charges
at Anderson were not based on these
certificates, and he has failed beyon(
dispute to prove that he had any o'i
dence of any kind upon which tC
base his original charge of the time
he made it. This explains, also
why my letter has not been answered
before"
After nm allusion to Captain Till
mans efforts to reorganize the Boart