The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1922-11-03
HILLS AGREES WITH GREENE ON
POTASH TARIFF.
Dean of Agricultural College Says He
Never Became excited" Over Levy.
is CONSISTENT PROCEDURE.
During War Americans Who Sought
to Develop Potash Industry Were
Hailed as Patriots,
Especial to The United opinion)

Especial to The United Opinion)
Burlington, Oct. 28.-Dean j L
Hills, of the State Agricultural Col
lege, University of Vermont, says that
he has never become excited over the
free potash proposition, which has
been the basis of a Farm Bureau at
tack on Congressman Frank l. Greene
of st. Adams, who voted to put a
small protective duty on potash for a
three-year period in order that it
might be demonstrated whether the
industry could be developed 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 Am
orleans who were seeking to develop
the potash industry to give relief to
the farmers, were hailed as patriots,
and he considers it inconsistent for
the country to turn it's back on them
now. Dean Hills shows how little
money would be involved, so far as
IIlG Wei ldIIllcl Is COuCcluCu, IL
the duty had been voted. His letter
to Congressman Greene reads as fol-
lows:
"Oct. 10, 1922.
"Hon. Frank l.. Greene,
House of Representatives
Washington, d. C.
"My Dear Mr.. Greene.
II have just read your statement
before the Franklin County Farm Bu-
reau touching the free potash matter
in certain respects my line of reason
ing parallels your own. never have
become excited over the free potash
proposition and for several reasons:
81. From 1915 onwards-and espe-
cially in 1917-1918-when farmers
were feeling the pinch of potash
otto and win the war grounds to de-
velop an American potash industry.
Many concerns, both East and West,
invested heavily in their attempt to
establish such an industry and they
furnished a considerable amount of
potash. 1t seems inconsistent for the
people who then hailed these Ameri-
can potash makers now to turn their
backs upon them.
SO. The development of depend
able and adequate American potash |
supply would be immensely worth |
while from every standpoint. No ma
ton, no continent shoul d monopolize
so vital a material. I am of the
opinion that the likelihood that a
successful American potash industry |
will La a1O,An1 &c C1iOht |
wish it were better. However, in |
view of the origin of this business, |
feel that it ought to have had an OPP
portunity at least for a short time to
get upon it's feet. Not only is this in
accord with the traditional policy of
the Repub lean party to foster i'm
portant infant industries, but it would |
seem to be in line with good policy
in the development of home resources.
'3. The farmer needs protection,
for his own sake and that of us all.
No member of the body polite needs
it more. The new tariff law justly
accords such protection to greater
extent than has any of its predeces-
sors In view of this fact, l feel that
a potash duty, limited as it was by
the terms of the bill to a very few
years and, moreover rapidly diminish
ing in its size, would not have proved
to the generality of farmers, to have
been a serious burden but, on the
contrary, a small price to pay in
order to determine the possibility of
the development of SO important a
home industry
"a. Looking at the matter from the
narrower Vermont standpoint, it
should be noted that duty on potash
would have cut a comparatively small
figure, particularly in view of its pro-
posed rapid diminution. The average
Vermont farmer uses somewhat less
han a ton of commercial fertilizer
The average fertilizer sold
n Vermont in 1922 carried about 801
pounds of potash per ton, and the
average farm usage is about 60
pounds. Clearly the increased cost
yer average farm would have been
mall.
'Yours very truly,
HILL |