The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-07-20
SAYS HIS CHARGES
WERE SUPPRESSED
Campbell County Farmer Attacks
Commissioner OF Agricul
ture KOincr.
FERTILIZER WAS MiSBRANDED
Addressed Letters to Board OF
Agriculture Which Were
Never Delivered.

Charges against George W. Koincr,
migration. brought BY w. T. Mitchell.
wcll-known farmer of Campbell
County. are published in this weeks
issue of the Altavista Journal. The
charges relate 10 alleged !rregulari-
ties in the method of inspecting fer
tiliZer. but the essence of the matter
lies in the charge that when Mr.. Nit
chcll fled with the State Board OF
Agriculture Il statement of the alleged
Irregularities. they were suppressed
by Mr.. Kolner. and that his letter
and the accompanying papers were
never laid before the board
MIR. CnmpbciPs Statement.
Mr.. Campbell says:
Some years ago finding hundreds
of tons Of commercial fertilizers were
being sold 10 the farmers OF this sec.
ton without inspection. ] wrote Mr.
Koiner. calling his attention TO inc
dcreliction of duty Of the inspector,
and. as there was no Improvement, |
again wrote Mr. koiner. asking II It
were not possible to have the inspector
do his duty. us paid for, In u snort
time l received a very insulting letter
from the Inspector. To which | re-
piled IN pretty plain language and By
the same mail wrote the Board OF Az
ricuiture in care OF G.. ". koiner, pre-
ferring charges against This inspector
and Offering some suggestions which
/ was satisfied would If acted upon.
be for the bcttermcnt of the farming
interests OF Virginia. In a few days
received q letter from Mr. Koiner
telling me to submit my evidence
against the inspector to him. To this
letter l replied ! was surprised that
he CIR. Ko!ncr) had the letter, which
was not addressed TO him. but to the
Board OF Agriculture, and l would cx-
pect him to deliver 10 The board my
letter at once, and by return mail,
received letter from Mr.. Ko!ner sag
ing he had the appointing of the in
spcctors. and that he would require
me to lay my evidence before him. IN
answer TO this, wrote Mr. koiner
that, while / knew the law gave him
the right to name the inspectors, their
confirmation Wa subject to the Board
OF Agriculture. and that I could not
recognize his right to open my letter
and withhold Il from the board, and /
would expect him TO deliver the letter
to the board and l would be ready
upon notincat!on TO appear with evil
dence 10 support my charges.
Says koincr Suppressed II.
When the Board Of Agriculture met,
Mr.. ko!ner did not deliver my letter,
and at once opened communication
with TWO OF the members Of this board.
telling them OF Mr.. koiner's suppress
sion Of my letter. and wrote one OF
these gentlemen. q MI Mock. that three
days before the next meeting OF the
board would mail a letter TO the
board in his care, and TO please call
At the Richmond postotiice and get
the letter and lay il before the board.
This l did, and Mr.. Mock called at the
post Office for il. and on being told
there was no such letter there. went
direct 10 Mr. Koiner's office and asked
II such letter was there, bu, was
told II was not, and when the board
met. Mr.. Mock asked Mr.. Koiner ii
there was any letter or communication
from me to the board in his Office or
care. 10 which Mr.. koiner replied there
was not After the board adjourned.
about ! o'clock. Mr.. Mock not being
satisfied went back TO Mr.. Koiners Of
fee making further inquiries about the
letter, when a clerk produced it, say
at IL o'clock. and when Mr.. Mock ask
ed why this letter was not sent i'm
med!ately TO the board, which was then
In session, no satisfactory excuse was
offered. on learning the facts from
Mr.. Mock. and being satisfied that my
letter was delivered At Mr. Eoiner's
Office the day before the meeting of
the Board OF Agriculture. l took the
matter up with the postal authorities
~ Washington. who at once started
tracers and found my letter was de-
livered AT Mr.. koiner's office the day
before the meeting OF the Board of
Agriculture. and ! now hold this re-
port 10 that effect, which exposes not
only 4 piece of dirty work, but shows
miserable state Of affairs in one of
the most important Offices OF our state
and one that could not have occurred
under the controlling influence of
man OF high moral ideas
AS TO Misbrnndcd Fertilizer
Ny next experience with Mr. Koi-
ner was when l notified him that not
withstandirg tho law required all fer
tilizcrs sold in Virginia to have the
manuiacturer's name on the sacks. that
hundreds OF tons OF fertilizers were
being sold 10 our farmers without
being properly branded, and il hc would
send an Inspector TO my section 7
would show the inspector whore he
could find and seize quite a lot of
such mlsbranded goods To this letter
Mr.. koiner rcplied that ! did not
understand the law. and refused TO
take any steps to stop the sale of
these goods
Tho method Of selling fertilizer in
violation Of the State law. being
winked N by Mr.. Koiner in violation
OF his official oath. can he. if II has not
been, made a method of the most stu
pendous frauds on the farmers of our
state, as, while the law says that the
manufact urers of low grade fertilizers
when the analyses fall 10 per cent or
more below that guaranteed on the
bag, shall be assessed five times the
value OF such shortage for the benc-
fit OF the farmers who purchased this
fertilizer. but these low grade goods
are sold through dummy agents OF no
financial responsibility; hence If a
carload runs short there Is no re-
sponsible party from whom the penal
ty can be cole cted.
Every statement in this connection
! have documentary evidence to sup
port. which | will be pleased to show
L., I'D