News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1922-11-08
PROF. HILL ON POTASH
Prof. j. l.. Hills of the University of
Vermont Agrees with Congressman
Greene on the Potash Question.

IrOI. D. IL. HIS OF the university OF
Vermont Agrees with Congressman
Greene on the Potash Question.
Dean J. L. Hills of the State Agri-
cultural College, University of Ver-
mont, says that he has never become
excited over the free potash PROPOSE
Farm Bureau attack on Congressman
Frank l.. Greene of st. Adams, who
voted to put small protective duty
on potash for three-year period in
order that it might be demonstrated
whether the industry could be de-
veloped in this country and the Amer
lean 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 develop the potash industry
to give relief to the farmers, were
nailed as patriots and he considers
1t inconsistent for the country to turn
It's back on them now. Dean Hills
shows how little money would be in
volved, so far as the Vermont farmer
is concerned, if the duty had been
voted. His letter to Congressman
Greene reads as follows:
October 10, 1922.
"Hon. Frank L. Greene,
House of Representatives
washington, d. G..
"My Dear Mr.. Greene:
81 have just read your statement
before the Franklin County Farm
Bureau touching the free potash mat
ter. In certain respects my line of
reasoning parallels your own. Il
never have become excited over the
free potash proposition and for sew
eral reasons:
81. From 1915 onwards-and espe-
cially in 1917-1918-when farmers
were feeling the pinch of a potash
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 industry
and they furnished considerable
amount of potash. 1t seems incon-
sistent for the people who then hailed
these American potash makers now to
turn their backs upon them.
"2. The development of a depend
able and adequate American potash
supply would be immensely worth |
while from every standpoint. No
nation, no continent should monop- |
olize so vital material. | am of the
opinion that the likelihood that sue
cessful American potash industry
will be developed is very slight.
wish it were better. However, in view !
of the origin of this business, l feel |
that it ought to have had an oppor-
tunity at least for a short time to
get upon it's feet. Not only is this
in accord with the traditional policy
Of the Republican party to foster i'm
portant infant industries, but it would
seem to be in line with good policy
in the development of home re-
sources.
SO. The farmer needs protection
'or his own sake and that of us all.
No member Of the body polite needs
t more. The new tariff law justly
lccords such protection to a greater
extent than has any of its predeces-
;ors. In view of this fact, l feel
hat potash duty, limited as it was
~ the terms of the bill to a very few
7ears and, moreover, rapidly dimin-
shing in its size, would not have
proved to the generality of farmers
o have been a serious burden but, on
he contrary, small price to pay in
rider to determine the possibility of
he development of so important a
lone industry.
"a. Looking at the matter from
he narrower Vermont standpoint, it
hould be noted that a duty on
potash would have cut comparatively
mall figure, particularly in view of
is proposed rapid diminution. The
verage Vermont farmer uses some
What less than a ton of commercial
ertilizer annually. The average fer
ilizer sold in Vermont in 1922 car
led about 80 pounds of potash per
on, and the average farm usage is
bout 60 pounds. Clearly the in
reased cost per average farm would
ave been small.
"Yours very truly,