Asheville daily citizen., 1891-06-30
THEIR EXPLANATION.
STATEMENT FROM THE DUR
HAM FERTII,IZER co.
4 EuII and Frank statement of
EactS Concerning Recent Trans
actions.

EactS Concerning Recent Trans
actions.
DURHAM, n. l., June %.
To the Pubhc -,
Men who follow other business pur-
suits naturally shrink from engaging III
wranglcs, and the necessity
therefor is our only excuse for this card
1t is not every false accusation that We
would notice in that WAY; but the charge
OF fraud made by certain newspapers
against the Durham Fertilizer Company,
rs il has tendency to uniavorably AFFECT
the business of the company and also
the reputation of the several gentlemen
with whom We are associated III the
manag, mrnt OF the business, we cannot
under the circumstances permit the
charge to go unChallcnged
We believe that most Of the editors ot
the several newspapers who have pub
Ishcd this charge did so in good faith.
however much they may have subjected
themselves to ust criticism for allowing
their papers to be used in the interest OF
rival manufacturers in their attempts to
niurc the business of our own company.
We offer them, however, Il test of their
good faith to he subjected to the analysis
oi pubic opinion ly presenting to them
the facts in the following staten nj with
the opportunity to publish them II they
really want to do no injustice but merely
to serve, as they claim, the interests OF
the public.
Now for the facts: On the 26th day OF
May, 1891, the Durham Fertilizer Com
pany shipped bv the K. & d. Railroad to
Mcbancville, n. c., three car loads OF
fertilizer, one to W. Is. Sellars, Business
Agent of Pleasant Grove Alliance, No.
1888, OF Alamance county, and the other
two car loads to |. K. Smith, Busi-
ness Agent OF Ridgevillc Alliance, No.
ISL, of Caswcl county. Mr.. Smith
was in Durham nj the office OF the
Company on that very day, and per-
soually urging the company to ship
the goods as the season was growing
late, and the farmers wanted the goods
at once. We had been buying tax-paid
tags from the department i'll Raleigh
from time to time, and supposed we had
enough tags Tor this which was about
our last shipment, and did not discover \
deficiency OF tags until We began to load
the cars on the evening OF the 10Th OF
May. We at once, on finding out that
we did not have on hand enough tags
ton all the goods in these shipments,
wrote the department ON the next
day (27th May enclosing our check ot
that date for the amount necessary. Our
l,ttcr and check did not reach the depart
mcnt at Raleigh until the next day,
lrhursday, May 2Sth), after the goods
mad left Durham, and VIC received the
tags by express on the morning of May
Goth FRIDAY, and on the evening OF
MAY 10Th, we gave the tags to the
gent OF the Richmond and panvillc rail
road company. at durham, to bc sent to
The railroad agent Ut Mcbancvilic to tag
he bags at Mcbancyillc. On the neat
day, being informed that the tags given
the agent were not sufficient, we sent
more and all this occurred before we had
intination Of any sort that the goods
had been detained for want OF tags, or
that any body intended t" detain them.
Our first official inOrmation.o the dctcn-
tlun of the goods was on Monday, unc
ist when an official letter camctrom MIR.
Robinson, commissioner. Ii is not pre-
tended hy anybody, but that only a part
of these goods lacked tags when they lett
Durham. aud To the charge that the
goods were ST. packed in the cars that III
opening The car doors the tagged bags
only would he seen and the untagscd
bags wcr, concealed in the rear ends of
the cars, we assert it is not true and
III corrubOratrnn we quote from letter
received by MS from Mr.. X. Smith. lie
writes: II will also state that the report
that the sacks III front of the doors in
the car we're taggcdand those at the bot
tom and the rear ends were not tagged
is false" He further SAYS he was present
when the CaiS were opened aud he and
those TOR whom the goods were pur-
chased took out the FIRST 40 sacks, and
the party who originated this false charge
and is travelling salesman for another
fertilizer company, WIS not there at that
time at all. We might state also that We
knew that the parties were anxious to
get the goods as soon as possible,
and some OF them had to be hauled
twenty miles from Mcbancville, and
the nearest some eight or ten miles,
and VIC thought We could safely get
the tags to Mcbancvillc before the
last of the goods would bc hauled away
bv the farmers in their wagons. The to-
tai amount OF the tags on the goods de-
tanned at Mcbancvllc was the magnih-
cent sum of two dollars and twelve and
one half cents, and nobody will dispute
the fact that we have paid into the de-
pHrtmcnt more tax on fertilizers than
any other manufacturer in the state or
manufacturing concern outside OF the
state and selling goods in North Caro-
Iiua. In tact We have paid the depart.
mcnt between one. seventh and one
eighth of all the tax collected by it from
this source of taxation.
Would any sane man believe upon this
showing we intended to jcopardizc our
business and reputation for such paltry
sum as two dollars and twelve and a
half cents?
But our lynx eyed rivals in trade. find
inu this charge about to tall to the
ground by its own insignliicancc, start
another of a more serious character, and
charge that this particular lot of our
goods, being analvzcd. did not come up
to the guaranteed standard in one OF the
component ingredients.
Well, what are the facts i'll regard to
this matter? Our goods arc manufac,
turcd according to certain chemical for.
mulaS, and every pound of material used
in the process oi manufacture rs subjected
to analysis by some OF the most compc
tent chemists in the omitted States. The
manufactured products before shipment
are also analyzcd complete at least once
in every ten days. We are informed that
the department in Raleigh claim
cd that upon analysis by it,
chemist OF samples drawn from
this particular lot OF goods shipped to
Mebaneyillc, there were one hundred
and ffty-scvcn bags below the guaran
ice. This deficiency claimed was largely
in available phosphoric acid" While
the total phosphoric acid as shown by
the department analysis was largely il
excess OF the guarantee, it was claimec
that the available phosphoric acid
was under. Ourexplanation of this mat
ter is that this particular lot of good'
had six hundred and fifty pounds OF ami
mai bone testing over 80 per cent bon'
phosphatel in it, which, while it is mucl
more valuable as fertilizer and cost us
considerably more money, does not show
available phosphoric acid as acit
phosphate would do. So we CLAIM
that in any event the farmer VIII,
Il a Il III