200 CHEMICAL DEPARTMENT. 



asked for an explanation, so I fear the matter has been left in a wrong posi- 

 tion, as our reply during my absence did not point to the real facts. 



I was told recently by our Dundee agent, Mr A. Dudgeon, who sold 

 manure to Mr Powrie, that the analysis would be published in this year's 

 Transactions ; but I think you will hardly think it fair to do so imder the 

 circumstances. 



On investigating the matter last June, I found that two members of the 

 said local society called at Mr Powrie's without invitation, and, seeing some 

 manures, asked his permission to take samples. Mr Powrie consented. I 

 do not think the samples were taken on that occasion, but in meantime Mr 

 Powrie saw our agent, Mr Dudgeon, and told him that he was getting the 

 manure tested, but did not explain that he should be present or fix any 

 date- — in fact, the intimation was a hurried, offhand affair. So the sample 

 was drawn, and I ascertained that not even Mr Powrie, the purchaser, was 

 present, and, worse than all, the samples, of which I understand two were 

 taken, were not sealed, for I asked for the duplicate sample ; but finding it 

 was not sealed, and as there was no satisfactory proof of it being our 

 manure, I declined to take any steps with it. ' 



Now, I hardly think the Highland and Agricultural Society will coun- 

 tenance analysis conducted in this loose and irregular fashion, much less 

 publish the result. AVe cannot claim to be infallible, but we know that 

 not an ounce of manure leaves the works here which is not fully up to the 

 . guarantee. 



I hope you will kindly have this matter inquired into, and save my firm 

 from very grievous loss. — Yours truly, Robert Bell. 



No. 2 was a superphosphate sold by Mr R. G. Murray, Spittal, 

 Biggar. It is simply a case of a superphosphate insufficientl}^ 

 dissolved. The seller explains that it was bought by him from 

 the manufacturers, who forwarded it direct from their stores, 

 and that he sold it under the identical guarantee that he had 

 received from the manufacturers without having even seen the 

 manure. In these circumstances, he considers that, if there is 

 blame attachable to any one, it should be to the manufacturers, 

 and not to himself, who acted only as an intermediary in the 

 transaction. This is not the view entertained by the Chemical 

 Committee. They are clearly of opinion that the seller of a 

 manure is directly responsible to the purchaser for the (luality 

 of the stuff he sells, whatever be the medium through which he 

 supplies it, and that it is his duty to ascertain that it is up to 

 the quality he guarantees. A purchaser buys a manure relying 

 upon the respectability and responsibility of the seller, and it 

 does not concern him to know from what source the seller 

 obtains his supplies. 



Feeding Stufs. 



It is a notable feature of the returns made by the associa- 

 tions last season, that they contain very few analyses of feeding 

 stuffs — only 12 out of 182 — and all these are samples of linseed 

 cakes sold under an analytical guarantee. It would be interest- 

 ing to know what proportion these twelve linseed cakes bear to 

 the total mmiber of feeding stuffs analysed for the associations ; 



