The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1890-06-26
THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT
Butler'S Reply No. to Til!man'e No. :.

70 the Editor OF the News and Cnu-
rier: have just read Capt. i. X. Ill
mans charges against the department
of agriculture and against myself, naae
in his Greenvi;le speech. As ne TOOK
the trouble to write them out Tor me
reporters, there Is no poSslhllity o1 his
saying hereafter that he Was ms
quoted.
For the past four or five years have
been compelled to meet and expose hiS
charges, and have endeavored III al!
that time TO keep within the bounds O.!
decency. My efforts have been to treat
him courteously under strong prov"ca-
ton to do otherwise. If / now depart
from that rule | trust the people OF
South Carolina will attribute it the just
iudipuation OF a man and L public ser
want who feels himself perslstentiy,
maliciously and wilfuily slandered.
His first and second statements that
1.-The bureau has made no honest effort
to protect the farmers against beng
swindled by buying guano below the
uuarantee," and that ''it has not EN-
forced its own regulations are SIMPLY
false. as tie reports Of the department
will show. These are general state
ments that can only be answered III a
similar manner. When a specific state
ment is made it will be answered Us 1t
deserves.
His third statement, that although
,he law is known to be defective, and
rhe nunishment inadequate, 40 at
t.,nnt has been made by the board or
commissioner to have 1t amended, eN-
cent that the matter was mentioned III
one of the department reports several
Wears ago" he likewise kHoWs 10 pe ull-
true. but being more specific can be
met in more positive manner. NJ my
request several bills were introduced IN
The legislature at different times. Two
of these NAV be cited: One by Col. +.
r. McIver. ut the Session OF 1883,
which passed the House and failed III
the Senate. (see House Journal. Session
1855. pages 126, l5G, ;:33 and $40, ana
another at the Session OF 1897, intro
duced bv Senator Ioumans. but failed
in the Senate. I think. This latter bill
| have not had time to trace through
the Journals. These two are sufficient
TO disprove the charge that the COM
missioner has not made an effort to
have the laws amended where, in his
So many OF Tillman's charges are
made in a rambling way that it is only
nossible to answer them generally, and
this will do as nearly as possible IN
the order in which t'.ey are made.
have not contended that ali manu-
facturers " ere honest. Ii that We're
true, analyses might he unnecessary.
Some have attempted to detraud, and
have been punished with all the penal
ties the department could impose. so
much for that.
INFoRCING THE FERTILIZER LAWS.
With an earnest desire to visit the
severest penalties contemplated by law
upon any manufactured who attempted
TO defraud the farmers, | requested
ATTORNEY General Miles to inform me
ifan auaivsis of any brand OF fertilizer
showed deficiency from the eXarulna-
ton of a sample drawn out OF paru-
cular lot, whether the department
could seize and condemn any other l"t
of the same brand not found to be def
cient. He gave his official opinion that
only the particular lot inspected would
be liable to the law. TO make this per-
fectly plain, suppose that 4 lot OF Baltic
fertilizer, sampled at Greenville, was
shown by analysis TO be dehclent.
When the commissioner undertook to
seize and condemn that lot, he found
that it had all been hauled away anu
uut in the ground, Lut he knew at the
time there was another lot Of the same
brand at Spartanhurg that had not
been inspected or aualyZed. He could
not seize and condemn the eSpartanburg
shipment, because, in the opinion OF
Attorney General Miles, it had not
heen analyZed, and indeed, an analysis
of that lot might, as is frequently the
ease, show higher results than TIE
C1reenville samples gave. This IS why
the law cannot be enforced. The parti-
cular lot analyzed has, in every case
have ever known of, been hauled away
before the contlScatlon could ne at
temDted. All of these defects have time
and again been brought othe attention
of members of the Legislature. by me,
and have urged that they be corrected
but, as | shall presently prove by one
of Capt. Tillmau's own witnesses, the
members of the Legislature were not
without reason in thinking that our
'ssitaiicizing" of brands Was sufficient
punishment.
But TilIman is much concerned about
the farmers who may have lost some
thing while the farmers generally re-
ceive full value This is III reply to my
statement that the average commercial
value of fertilizers exceeded the manu-
facturers' guarantees. To show how
few farmers lost anything as far as
commercial valne is concerned. take
the report for 1856 which he has quoted,
and il will be found that out OF over
two hundred brands analyZed only
three were below the guarantees III
commercial value.
AS to the general SUPERVISION OF
fertilizer sales, it may be stated lilaI IN
1882 our analysis showed tlat Ine
Cuban Bird Guano was deficient. Inc
farmers refused payment and the ana
lvsis cost the manufacturers between
so 900 and $50, 600 Mr.. 4. NJ. Ander-
son of this city, can SubstaEtlate this.
Settlements based on the depart
n,ent's ANALYSIS are constantly being
made. Upon the analysis OF L brand
found to be deficient last year, the
farmers who purchased the fertlI!ZeFs
have recently settled with the dealer,
Wr C. ". Covington, of Florence, at
about one-fourth Of the price charged
a settlement perfectly satisfactory 70
the purchasers.
Again, he says that the farmers, or |"
be more exact not one III liIlE' ever
saw the reports containing ID" analyses,
and solemnlv assures his hearers tAtI
only $40 OF these reports were pun
ljShed IN 1889. During the year lSNS AL