The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1900-02-14

per ton more than ii did last year.
Bags are costing us Poe. per ton more
than they did last year. 80 that IN.
crude material going inina ton Of Acid
S2:27 more than it did nycar ago.
Every piece of factory supplies and
machinery. coal, and everything nrces-
sary to operate Il factory, is from -
10 lOop,r cent. higher ,lInn il was Il year
ago. His viii add certainly an ;l,ldi-
tlonal llr To the cost of Il ton of fcrtiIi-
Irr, making IN the most conservative
and reasonable estimate possible Il ton
OF - prr cent. Arid Phosphate, bagycd
ana ready ior shipncut. cost t he manu-
iaciiiIrr S?.3' more than ii did twelve
months ago.
Now LEI rs look ut complete .lnrnon
atcd iciilllzcis We will tak, what is
commonly known rs standard grade of
complete irrfllizci. running. say, >.
available plIn>pIoiir acid, un,l per
cent. "i potash, As ! have above, de-
in"ilstratcd, acid phosphate costs go,
more han last year. This is cuuiva-
lent to little more than ZOE. Der 100
pounds. In making the =. \ and
ltrtlilIcrs. .:D1 pounds of acid plO,-
Phaft would bc necessary. 81 at zoe nd
ul'I"Iiil cost per 100 pounds. the Hhd-
iIonal cost for ci, phosphate would b,
- ~.
II roitun seed meal WAS iis;.,i for ,.i;.
ammonia. II would take appI,,xirrIatcIv
wv pounds. ANA cotton seed meal js
now worth $500 pr ton more. than last
year. which IS equivalent 10 ::Jc. Der
lo' pounds. and .'W pounds would ..nSr
:; 10 nor" than /, did last year. \uw
add !ir. inr extra cost for Tie bags and
ynn have 500 per ION more tor tLc
materials than W. paid for these same
lilIttlIalS last Nt.;ir
II tanka.r or blood W:S ,lstd for thr
source oi ammonia instead of cotton
seed meal. the advanced cost over last
year would be- $50 per ton. as auIIon
III from tankngr or blood is now r0r.
per unit higher than last wear, so for
cost over last year would be 81 so.
Sulplltc OF ammonia is the only
other source of ammonia commonly
USED III the manufacture of fertilizers.
lWclvc months ago this article was
selling at about Sl3.00 per ton. W..
paid for it this week SG2.W per ton.
Now assert that the price of fcrtil-
mcrs mas not advanced nearly so much
;is tlle price OF raw materials going into
tiirin- Let MS see who is to blame, if
any one; for the advance of these crude
materials. Take I'yrites: We bly
from Spain more than three fOurtls of
all we use. Nitrate of Soda. We buy
chtircly from South America. Potash
naits: we buy entirely from Germany.
% IL can not DC said that our company
controls or Is III any wise responsible
Tor the advance of these materials, as
we nave no interest whatever in any of
these properties, either directly or in
directly.
Take phosphate rock: We do mine :,
Siiilii proportion OF Ollr wants of DlOS-
phatc rock. but we mine none for sale
ana ana we b'ly from other mines more
tii;lii tWo-tfilrtis of what we consume.
SO no one will suppose that we were
rock. pi i'''''e
AS Tor cotton seed meal we have no
interest either directly or Indirectly in
any cotton seed oil mill, SO we are not
responsible for the advance in this ar
ticiG. Blood and tankage are made by
ne large packers in the West. and we
nave no interest and no control over
thcSc products i'll any way.
w ny, then, should the Virginia Car
olln;t Chemical Company be blamed
1or the advance in the cost of crude
materials, nnd would it be business
llhe lor us to- want an advance in crude
lhnterials, OF which we have to buy al
lmosC entlrely all OF our needs and of
whicn we produce absolutely nothing.
rOck7 pAo'n'''o
II is oIr aim ana purpose to manu-
iacture fertilizers as cheaply as pOssi-
Die and to sell them at as low price
rs we can afford, thereby stimulating
large consumption of fertilizers and
thelr general use for all crops,
Let us see how the farmer is situa-
TED: he is getting this year from q TO
&c. pound for his cotton more than
last year, and we understand that for a
great deal of the cotton seed the cotton
SEED OIL mills are now paying csc. per
Dushel. Are these advances wrong,
ana are the manufacturers who are
nnvlng to use this product ctcOndemning
the parties who produce them, simply
because the demand is such that the
price has increased so enormously over
last Year, AT present prices the farm
er can sell the cotton seed from one
acre OF land and buy as much fertili-
zers as he usually puts over two to
tnree acres, even though there is
small advance in the price of Fertilizers.
caused by the manufacturers having to
pay nigh prices for the materials enter
ing into them.
We propose to be perfectly fair and
canuid III our statements and believe
Inat when, an unprejudiced farmer
looks INTO the situation he will realize
That inc is not charged as much for fer
tliizers as the cost of materials under
present conditions warrant.
ours very respectfully,
$. r. MORGAN,
Tres Virginia. Carolina Chemical Co.