The state chronicle., 1892-01-06
STATEMENT. FROM
THE FERTILIZER CO.
A Reply to Commission
er. RobinsOn's Pub
]iCatiOn.
PRES. MORGAN WRITES.
The Statement Of the Durham Com
pony IN Regard to the Fer
hiizer Matter.
Co... @, sbe State Chronicle.

On my return here, after several
DAYS absence on business trip,
my attention has been called to an
article in your issue of the 18th
ult., the authorship Of which is as
sumed by Mr.. John Robinson, Com
missioner of Agriculture. 1t pro-
fesses to be an advance sheet of the
Department Bulletin" for Janu-
ary, 1892 and purports to give a
corrected account of the recent trial
at Oxford of the case of the Board
of Agriculture against the Durham
Fertilizer Company and Mr.. S. w.
Parker. My first impulse was not
to notice it; but upon reflection l
fear that silence on my part might
be misconstrued, and some might
think it a tacit admission of what
Mr.. Robinson is pleased to publish
as an accurate report.
What Mr.. Robinson has pub
lished is not only inaccurate in
what he processes tc write, as will
undertake to show, but more glar-
ingly so in what he has failed to
publish. He ought to have frankly
stated that the reasons why his
prosecution failed and the case
broke down so suddenly was be-
cause he brought the suit hastily,
without due consideration and be-
tore he took the necessary trouble
to ascertain the facts, and when the
trial came on his proof was lacking
to support his allegations.
He alleged in his sworn CON-
plant, from which l quote, "That
as plaintiff is informed and believes,
the defendant, the Durham Fertili.
ger Company, sold and delivered to
the defendant, S. w. Parker, and
the defendant, S. w. Parker on
June oath, 1891, either IN his own
right, or as agent of the defendant
corporation, had in his possession
and on sale sixty bags Of the said
brand Of fertilizer, &C."
Now ON the trial, the plaintiff ut.
terly failed to produce single wit
ness to testify to a single one of tn,
foregoing allegations in his sworr
complaint, except the fact that Mr.
Parker had the fertilizer stored il
his warehouse in Oxford, and tha
he was storing it there for Mr.. J
+. Cole, to whom it was consigne'
for White Rock Alliance, for tn
consumers, and it was not on sale a
all. SO the proof did not fit the ale
cations, and some people wonde
how Mr.. Robinson could have mad
such erroneous allegations so delit
erate!y, especially when correct il
formation was SO easily obtainabls
Neither Mr.. Parker, nor Mr.. Col
ever hesitated to declare how th
goods were stored in MIR. Parker
warehouse.
Mr.. Robinson says: at was
evidence and not contradicted, ths
the sixty-one bags had been in O,
ford nearly month without tags.
He leaves it to be inferred, an
doubtless wishes it TO be inferre,
by those who read his publication
that the company had shipped II
goods without tags and then ne
iected to send the tags for a mont
This is in keeping with his asse
ton that it was "not contradicted
10 be fair, he should have state
that his case broke down before tt
defendants had the opportunity
Introduce a single witness.
He will not deny that the
PENDANTS did have large numb
of witnesses in attendance, and h;
we gotten that far with the trial 3,
were prepared to show that the Dr.
ham Fertilizer Company prompt
after the shipment sent by mail
Oxford, addressed to J. +. Cole
package of tags sufficient for t
purpose of tagging the bags, a
out Of which the goods were subs
quently tagged by the departme
agent. This package of tags W