The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1890-05-29
TO CAPTAIN TILLMAN.
An Open Letter from Commissioner of
Agriculture Butler.

TO the Editor of The Daily News: In
your report of the meeting at Ander-
son on the 10th inst, Captain Tillman
is alleged to have made certain charges
against the management of the Depart
ment of Agriculture, in reply to which
beg yoL to give space to the following
letter. a. p. BUTLER.
COLUMBIA, S. G., May 18th, 1890.
Captain B. R. Tillman: In the news
paper reports of your speech at Ander-
son, OH May 10th, you are reported as
charging, substantially, that the De-
partment of Agriculture has permitted
the farmers Of South Carolina to be de-
frauded in the purchase of commercial
fertilizers by failure to punish manu-
facturers whose goods fall below their
guarantees. You are further reported
to have said that you could prove all
you charged and quoted from the
Annual Report Of the Department for
the Year 1856 as authority upon which
to sustain your statement.
The legal penalty in regard to def
cient fertilizers is seizure, condemna-
ton and sale, and because this penalty
has not been Inflicted, you deny that
any other penalty has been imposed.
This provision of the law cannot be
enforced for the sufficient reason that
when the analyses are made the fertili-
zers have been put in the ground and
are out of reach of an action Of the kind
prescribed. The defect in the law has
been reported to the Legislature and
could have been amended if that body
had thought it necessary or desirable.
That this has not been done, forces US
to the conclusion that the representa-
tives of the people honestly believed
that that the existing laws were sufti-
cient, or that the action of the Depart
ment itself had made amendments ne
cessary.
While therefore, we have not seized
and sold deficient fertilizers, we have
detected and exposed deficiencies, as
the very report from which you quoted
shows.
Finding that the law did not reach
the case, as contemplated, the Depart
ment resorted to the publication of the
manufacturers guarantee alongside Of
the official analysis, printing in italics
those brands falling below the guaran-
tee. This directed attention immedi-
ately to all deficient brands. Ii should
be understood, however, that the De-
partment has never undertaken to ex-
ercise the judicial authority to declare
which, if any, of such brands were
fraudulent. This penalty, voluntarily
imposed by the Department, was, after
detection, put upon every brand no
matter how slight the deficiency. In
one case this deficiency amounted to
only one one-hundredth cf one per cent.
of potash, the cheapest ingredient used
in commercial fertilizers. The Depart
ment could not say that this was
fraud any more than it could officially
pronounce other brands fraudulent
where the difference was greater. Just
what constitutes fraud is a question to
be determined by the courts alone.
There may be difference of opinion
as to whether merely exposing the de-
ficiency was sufficient punishment, but
the Legislature has so regarded it be-
cause it has for ten years failed to pro-
vide other punishment, even after the
defects in the law had been officially
reported. But the best evidence of the
effect Of this method of punishment is
found in the subsequent reports of the
Department. This plan for italicizing
deficient brands] was first adopted in
1884. An examination of our reports
since that time will show that there
has been steady improvement in the
value of fertilizers. 1t was not expected
that it would in one season result in
bringing every brand up to the guaran.
tee because new brands are being intro
duced every year and the manufactu-
rers of such brands, not having real
lied the effect of this penalty, might
take risks that those who had once
been exposed would afterwards avoid
if possible. With the exception of
the ammoniated fertilizers in q single
season, the improvement in the
grade Of fertilizers has been marked.
Take, for instance, the report that
you so garbled in making your
charges. 1t is there shown that the
averages Of the manufacturers guaran-
tee for ammoniated fertilizes were:
Available Phosphoric Acid % Per CT.
AmmOnla...... ...................2.1S
Potash Observation-Disclosures. 10
Commercial value............ 5000
The averages of the analyses 10y our
chemist were:
Available Fhosphoric Acid..S.30 Per Ct.
Acknowledgement. ....."2.6l "
Potash OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. II
Commercial value. S24.47
Now this shows that, taking the gen.
eral sale throughout the State, these
goods for that season crcccdcd the
manufacturers guarantee in
Pr. ct.
Available phosphoric acid............-l.0S
Ammonia ..................... ..............U.71
1OtdSu
Commercial value $:'6S per ton.
Why did you not explain this also "
Was it because you had determined to
denounce the Department of Agricul-