The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1891-06-30

acid" While the total phOSpnOrIc
acid as shown by the department.
analysis was largely in excess of the
guarantee, it was claimed that the
"aUaGIGble phosphoric acid was under.
Our explanation of this matter is that
this particular lot of goods had six
hundred and fifty pounds of animal
phosphate) in it, which, while it is
much more valuable as a fertilizer and
cost us considerably more money, does
not show available phOsphOric acid as
acid phosphate would do. So we claim
that in any event the farmer who used
our goods sent to Mebaneville really
got a more UGLudbLe and a more eGpe1-
size article of our goods than if we had
used phosphate rock instead of animal
bone. A word as to the market value
of bone meal. While the value put
upon it by the department Is less than
twelve dollars per ton, the market
value of bone meal is from twenty-five
to thirty dollars per ton.
These goods were analysed by no less
than four chemists, and every one of
their analyses is higher in available
phOsphOric acid" than that of the de-
partment, but it is fair to the depart
ment to say that no two of them
exactly agree. We have on our Office
files dozens of certificates of analyses
from different chemists and from the
department showing the ingredients in
our goods to be above the guarantee
and on this very lot now in question
some of the chemists referred to put
available phosphOric acid" at $3.50,
that is to say SO above our guarantee.
These analyses are kept on file in the
regular routine of our business, and it
would afford us pleasure to have them
inspected by any of Our customers at
any time. We would be glad to give
these analyses in full in this card, but
to do so would make it too long for a
newspaper article, suffice it to say that
our goods have always heretofore
proven satisfactory to the department,
and this is the first and only complaint
which ever reached us and applies only
to this Mebaneville shipment and is
only 1854. But after all that has
been published and said about this
shipment Of goods to Mebaneville, with
full information before them; what is
the estimate in which they are held by
those who purchased them? Their
views r best expressed 1 their own
language, a copy of which was sent us
and is as follows: cat a meeting of
Ridgeway Farmers Alliance, No. 784,
the following resolutions were adopted:
Whereas certain newspapers in the
State u~nfriendly to the Alliance have
diligently striven to create the impress
sion that troubled existed between our
Alliance and the Durham Fertilizer
Company: and whereas we believe it
our duty to assert confidence in
our ability to take care of our own in
$500 - l. l-eo-zI z-sl TT,-L.Is-o-
Company from attacks of enemies by
whatever motives prompted; and
whereas the Durham Fertilizer Com
pany has rendered to Alliance the
sum of $2.43 upon each ton of fertilizer
purchased by lis and embraced in the
shipment alleged by the Commissioner
of Agriculture to be below guaranteed
standard,
Re8OlUed, That the attacks upon the
Durham Fertilizer Company are false
and unjust, and that in belief they
are instigated by the malicious motives
of representatives of rival goods which
have been repudiated by the Alliance
of this State.
ResOLUed, That we have complete
confidence in the honesty and integrity
of the Durham Fertilizer Company
and it's officers and the value and ex-
C0ll0nc0 OF It's goods.
ReSOLUed, That we have received
what we bought and expected to get
and have found every bag of their
goods up to representations and guar
antee. ,
ResoIUed, That being entirely salts
fed with the goods so furnished us.
and believing that the real objects of
the recent attacks are to promote rival
concerns and to create d~iSSensiOn in
the Alliance and cause discOrd between
it and it's tested friends, we will not re-
ceive any part of the money rendered
by the Durham Fertilizer COMPANY
because we are not entitled to it, and
that Our business agent be and is here
by instructed to return the same to the
Company with a copy of these said
resolutions which will be spread D O
the minutes.
(Signed G.. M. BURTON, Sec'y.
In this connection we would like to
remark: Did anybody ever before
hear of a man who was cheated refus-
ing to receive back the money out of
which he had been defrauded? And
we have actually been criticised
severely because we offered to refund
this money. Surely, we are placed
between two fires. The department
and the newspapers at the instance of
our trade rivals say refund" We
offer to refund and our customers say
they will not take the money. The
newspapers say we defrauded our Gus
toners; we say and they say we did
not. The farmer who buys and uses
our goods issatisfied with his purchases
and pays accordingly. Some editors
who run newspapers and do not buy
our fertilizers, seem not to be satisfied.
Again see what the other Alliance
purchasers of this lot of goods have to
say: The lot shipped to W. B. Sellars,
agent, June goth, 1891, at a regular