Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-01-28
COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS.
Tho Tonnage-Tax-wouid Farmers Have
toPsyJt?

toPsy It?
To the Editor of tho Dispatch:
Is there any necessity for this law?
Many years ago when but few farmers
In Virginia used commercial fertilizers,
depending principally on what manures
were collected about the farm, such a
law would have been useless. but the con-
dltions are now very much changed.
Almost every farmer now requires some
commercial fertilizers to supplement what
he makes on the farm, and experience
teaches that a good fertilizer containing
the necessary ingredients for the intended
crop, judiclously used. pays good proht.
Every farmer IL not a chemist. ana
few or none have the costly parapher-
MALTA OF the labratory in which to make
the proper tests. II is. therefore, quite
appropriate that a competent, disinterest-
ed chemist should make such tests for
the satisfaction OF both the farmer AMI
the vendors or manufacturers; hence the
State at considerable expense has fitted
up q complete laboratory and employed
competent chemist, whose duty II Is TO
make an analysis OF all fertilizers sold
I'm the State. III. being somewhat OF an
umpire between seller and buyer TO pre-
vent disputes and litigation, | think II
but fair that tax should be levied to
maintain the Office.
These analyses are published for the
Information OF the farmers. so that they
may select such as best suit their crops
and their soils.
The last report OF the chemist shows
very plainly the Importance OF the office
both to the manufacturers and the farm
era.
His report shows that twenty-eight
samples fen below the commercial value
guaranteed by the manufactures. while
ass exceeded the guarantee In commercial
value.
WHO PAYS THE TAX?
Does tho farmer pay the proposed tax
OF 10 cents per ton?
Under the old law OF 800 specifc-tax
the farmer did in many Instances have It
to pay. l have letter from person
who only sold forty tons last year. on
which he had TO pay $3.50 per ton. OF
course he was compelled to add a con-
siderable portion of that tax 20 the price
or lose the most OF his profit. whereas
n the tax had been 10 cents per ton he
would not have thought of It,
This Is not an isolated case. There are
many small concerns in Virginia who pay
from 90 TO 80 cents per ton on their sales
who are compelled to add portion or
this expense to tho price.
The large manufacturers complain that
II would largely increase their tax. They
would complain of any tonnage-tax. even
one cent per ton. because 1t allows the
small manufacturer to come in competi-
tiCn wi h them on fair and equal terms.
They claim that they sell at such small
profits they would be compelled to add
ten cents per ton TO the farmers bill.
They may sell by hundreds OF tons TO
manipulators at small margin. This the
proposed law does not tax, but II farmer
wants one, three, or five tons what Is
.ths profit per ton? Certainly not less than
$2-possibly double that sum-and they
would certainly not miss a sale at that
profit for the sake OF ten cents ton.
LIDO not see that they have any right TO
complain II they have TO pay $1,000 per
annum tax II they sell 1900 TONS as at
low estimate their profits would be
$4,000. and one who sells so tons would
have as hard a time TO raise $50
HOW FARMERS WOULD BE BENZ
FITTED.
The farmers would be benefited by the
proposed change. inasmuch as there would
be greater competition. The smaller
! factories would be encouraged and new
ones would spring UP, and all the bone
and other valuable fertilizlng material
now going TO waste or being sent out OF
| tho State would be utilized
L know of some now who are anxious
10 commence, but are deferred by this
unjust law.
If our large Virginia manufacturers were
the only ones to be benefited by this spe-
| cific tax then the question might arise
whether II IL wiser to break down all
the smaller ones for their benefit. They
lot. h..tlI p.tu 10
| capital. and employ a large number OF
laborers They claim also to pay a heavy
| State tax, and therefore claim this i'm
| munity.
To make up the account OF profit and
| loss TO the Sts.e I will lake one large
concern whose output | presume Is not
short OF $1,000 tons annually. by their
own report they employ from twenty
| FIVE TO lightweight men. and the plant IS
assessed at $4,000.
Now to make the same amount Il
would require 60 factories with an average
output of 900 tons. which would require
! from 100 IN 30O hands and their taxable
value would certainly not he less than
! 500 90. or $1,000 each, and their aggregate
( capital would certainly be double, so that
/ In roportion the smaller ones pay more
tax and employ more labor.
| BREAKING DOWN HOME INDUS
TRIES.
! Further. the present legislation is
! breaking down our own industries prin-
! cipaly for the benefit Of the manufac-
turers Of other States. BY the report OF
! the commissioner there were forty-nine
foreign manufactures TO thirty-iiye Vir-
/ ginia who paid the tax for 1898.
As most of them are large manufac-
| turers II Is safe to say that they sold
two thirds OF tho fertilizers sold in the
State or 100000 tons. on which they paid
| $500. without any other tax or employ
ing any labor. whilSour own people paid
$500 on $4,000 tons, besides taxes on pro-
perty and capital. and the employment
! of large number of iaborers
Now l submit Is II wise In the Legisla-
ture TO break down home Industries for
the benefit Of outsiders? A VIRGINIAN.
n. Il. OF the twenty-eight samples men,
J toned as falling below the guaranteed
commercial value all. or nearly all. were
| products OF large concerns, and one half
OF them. came from other States.
II there ever existed DOUBT as 10 the
Richmond Dispatches being tho most for