The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1890-05-22

report OF Tile mettlDS al AuueIsoH Uu
the 10th instant, Captain Tillman is
alleged to have made certain charges
against the management of the Depart
ment Of Agriculture, in reply to which I
beg you TO give space to the following
letter. a. z. BUTLER.
COLUMBIA, S. c., May 18th, 1880
Captaia b. IL. Tlln.an::
ln The newspaper reports of you.
speech at Anderson on May 10th you are
reported as charging, substantially, that
the Department of Agriculture has per
lnilted the farmers OF South Carolina to
bc defrauded in the purchase of commer-
cial fertilizers by failure to punish manu-
facluFers whose goods fall below their
guarantees. You are further reported to
have said that you could prove all that
i you charged, and quoted from the annu
al 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, condemnation
and sale; and because this penalty has
not been inflicted, you deny that any
other penalty has been imposed.
This provision of the law canuot be
enforced, for the sufficient reason that
when the analyses are made the fertils
izers have been put in the ground and
are out of reach OF an action of the kiud
prescribed. This 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 me 10
the conclusion that the representatives Of
The people honestly believed that the
existing laws were sufficient or that the
action Of the department itself bad made
amendments unnecessary.
While, therefore, ne have not seized
and sold deficient fertilizers, we have de.
tected and exposed al deficiencies, as
the very report from which you quoted
shows
Finding that the law did not reach
the case as contemplated, the department
resorted to the publication of the manu-
facturers' guarantees alongside of the
official analyses, printing in italics those
brands falling below the guarantee.
This directed attention Immediately to
all deficient brands. 1t should be un.
derstood, however, that the department
has never undertaken to- exercise The
iudicsaI 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. Iu one case this deficien
cy amounted to only one one-hun.
dredth of Que per cent. Of potash, the
cheapest ingredient used in commercial
fertilizers. The department 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 def
cheney vas 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 re
ported. But the best evidence fthe
effect of this method of punishment is
found in the subsequent reports of the
department. This plan (of italiciz!ng
deficient brands) was first adopted in
1854. 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 guarantee, because
new brands are being introduced every
year, and tho manufacturers of such
brands, not having realized the effect of
this penalty, might take risks that these
who bad been once exposed would after
wards avoid if possible. With the ex
ception of the ammoniated fertilizers, in
eingle season the improvement in the
grade of fertilizers has been marked.
Take, for instance, the very report
that you SO garbed in making your char
ges. 1t is there shown that the averages
of the manufacturers guarantees for
ammoniated fertilizers for that season
we're:
Available pbosphoric acid..S.22 per cent.
Potash. .....................l.4 .49
! Commercial value...
The averages of the analyses by our
chemist were:
Available phosphoric acid...9.30 per cent.
Ammonia.
Potash. h................ ...".2l1
Commercial value. .................."S24.41 S24.41
Now this shows that, taking the gener
al sales throughout the State, these goods
for that season erceetled the manufacturs
ers' guarantees in:
Available phosphoric acid...l.0S per cent.
Ammonia .......................0.43
Potash ......................0GS
Commercial yalue............ So 6S per ton.
Why did you not explain this also?
Was it because you had determined 10
denounce the Department Of Agriculture,
regardless of facts, and simply made use
of such garbled extracts as suited the
purpose you had in view? am forced
| to that conclusion. This is confirmed by
the further reply you are said to have
made when you were asked what had
become of the money ofthe department,
and replied that you "did not know"
The report in which you found so much
to condemn contained, as you we'll know,
an itemized statement of every expendi-
ture made by the department TOR that
year. You therefore did know the pur-
pose for which it had been expended,
and your answer was worse than a simple
evasion of the question.
You have assumed that all fertilizers
found deficient are fraudulent, and thai
in ell such cases the farmers are swim
led The agricultural value of many
brands of this character is not affected
by tho slight deficiencies detected, but
all are published because consumers have
right to know the exact results obtain.
ed. II is often the case that the COM
mercial value of such fertilizers exceods
the guarantee. But, there being a diff.
ference between commercial sud agrlcul-
tural values, we regard and treat any
brand falling below the guarantee of any
element of plant food as deficient"
You, ignorantly or maliciously, take ex-
tracts from table compiled in this way
to show that all deficient" fertilizers are
fraudulent.
The imperfections In the fertilizer laws
have been admitted and pointed out and
efforts made TO correct them, but until
that is done the Department OF Agricul.
ture only execute such laws as exist.