The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1922-11-02
DEAL HILLS AGREES WITH
CONGRESSMAN GREENE
On Subject OF Potash In the Recent
Tartfi Hill

over the free potash proposition.
which has been the basis OF a Farm
Bureau attack on Congressman
Frank L. Greene. OF ST Albans. who
voted TO put a small protective duty
on potash for threo-year period in
order that il might be demonstrated
whether the industry could be de-
yeloped in this country and the
American farmer thereby relieved OF
his dependence on foreign supplies.
mainly controlled by the German
potash monopoly.
In certain respects. Dean Hills
says. his reasoning on the subject
parallels that Of Congressman
Greene. During the war. the dean
points out. the Americans who were
seeking TO deeylop the potash indus
try to give relief 10 the farmers, we're
hailed as patriots. and he considers
! IL inconsistent for the country TO
turn its back on them now Dean
Hills shows how little money would
be involved, SO far as the Vermont
farmer is concerned. II the duty had
been voted. His letter to Congress-
man Greene follows
"oct 10. 1929.
Hon. Frank l.. Greene,
House of Representatives.
Washington, ID. c.
My Dear Mr. Greene:
Il have Just read your statement
before the Franklin County Farm
Bureau touching the free potash
matter In certain respects my line
of reasoning parallels your own. /
never have become excited over the
free potash proposition and for sew
eral reasons:
Il From 1915 onward and es-,
peeially in 1917-191S-when farm
ers We're feeling the pinch Of a pot
ash shortage, appeals were made on
patriotic and win the war grounds
to develop an American potash In
dustry Many concerns. both East
and West, invested heavily in their
attempt to establish such an Indus
try and they furnished a consider
able amount Of potash II seems in
consistent for the people who then
hailed thSse American potash maxi
ers now to turn their backs upon
them
."2. The development OF depend
able and adequate American potash
supply would be immensely worth
while from every standpoint No ma
tion, no continent should mOnopOlize
so vital material ! am Of the
opinion that the likelihood that
successful American potash industry
will be developed is very slight.
wish II were better. However In
view OF the Origin OF this business. |
feel that II ought TO have had al
opportunity at least for a short time
10 get upon its feet. Not only Is
his In accord with the traditional
policy Of the Republican party 10
,oster important infant industries.
1ut IL would seem 10 be in line with
good policy IN the development Of
rome resources.
"3. The farmer needs protection,
or his own sake and that Of Us all.
20 member OF the body polite needs
{ more The new tariff law Justly
lccords such protection 20 a greater
'xtent than has any OF its predeces-
ors. In view Of this fact. feel that
potash duty. limited as Il was BY
he terms Of the bills 20 a very few
ears and moreover. rapidly dimin-
shing IN its size. would not have
lroved 20 the generality Of farmers.
o have been a serious burden but. on
he contrary. a small price TO pag IN
rider 10 determine the possibility u
he development of 10 important a
ome industry
-. Looking az the matter from
be narrower Vermont standpoint IL
hould - noted that a duty on pot
sh would have cut a comparatively
mall figure. Particularly Ia view -
e proposed rapid diminution The
yerage Vermont farmer uses some-
bat less than a ton o. commercial
.rtilizer annually The average
.rtilizer sold in Vermont in 1922
lrried about 80 pounds of potash
~ ton. and the average farm usage
about 80 pounds Clearly the In
.essed cost per average farm would
a0e been small
Yours very truly.
- I'LL l. -.