Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1890-07-03

OWL EWilIleSSeSSz llle fIlelnDeTS OIL CHe
Legislature were not without reason
in thinking that our stitalicising" of
brands wos sufficient punishment.
But Tillman is much concerned
about the farmer who may have lost
something, while the farmers geno-
rally received full value. This is in
reply to my statement that the ave-
rage commercial value of fertilizers
exceeded the manufacturers guaran-
tees. ,To show how few farmers
lost anything as far rs commercial
value is concerned, take the report
for 1885 which he has quoted, and it
will be found that out of over 200
brands analyzcd only three were be-
low tho guarantees in commercial
value.
As to the general supervision of
fertilizer sales, il may be stated that
in 1882 our analysis showed that the
Cuban Bird Giano was deficient
The farmers refused payment and
the analysis cost tho manufacturers
between $4,000 and $4,000. Mr..
r. M. Anderson, of this city, can
substantiatc this.
Settlements based on tho Depart
ment's analysis arc constantly being
made. Upon the analysis of brand
found to bo deficient last year, the
farmers who purchased the fertilizers
have recently settled with the dealer,
Mr.. 9. M. Covington, of Florence,
nj about one fourth of the price
charged--a settlement perfectly sat
isfactory to the purchasers.
Again, he says that the farmers,
or to be more exact, lot one in fifty
ever saw the reports containing the
analyses, and s6lemnly assures his
hearers that only 1900 of these re-
'orts were published in 1885, Dur
ing the year 1888 all of these maly-
ses were published in the Daily and
Weekly Neaos and Courier. For
the sake of economy this was not
done in 1889, but the analyses were
published as soon rs made in the
Monthly Reports Of the Department.
About $4,000 of these reports con
tanned analyses of official samples,
and in addition thereto 800 special
bulletins were issued, making total
distribution OF the analyses of 15,500
copies. These facts are fully set
forth in the Annual Report and
were known to Mr.. Tillman. This
is only an additional evidence of his
intention to misreprescnt regardless
of facts.
AS to the letter Of Mr.. Connor, Of
Orangeburg, the Department does
not want better witness. If, as he
states, he called the attention Of ono
of our samplers to a lot of fertilizers
that had been inspected and found
deficient, it was certainly the duty
of the Commissioner to have at
tempted to have the law enforced
against it. The sampler, however,
has no recollection of the matter,
and it was certainly never brought
to my attention. Mr.. Connor does
not say that he called tho samplers
attention to the matter, and ] would
be glad to know the name of his in
formant, and when the information
came to Mr.. Connor's knowledge.
But if it was known to Mr.. Connor,
he might easily have reported the
matter to this Office and thus secured
action in the matter, or have conclu-
sively shown that | did not enforce
the law. AS it stands, it is a qucs-
ton between Mr.. Connor, or his in
formant, and the sampler, and can
not be satisfactorily settled. But
tparA Connor fully and amply justi-
nes the Department and the I.cgisla-
turc in another way. lie says !:
"No notice, however, was taken of
the same by the Department, apa
M. Copcs sent Tie guano aacay, as lie
''as completely doycoHed oa0 could
|