l6o AGRICULTURE OF MAINE. 



pending further investigations. Court proceedings were not 

 instituted, however, on this case as the analysis had revealetl 

 that the sample in question carried a high moisture content. 

 When the fertilizer inspection was begun in Aroostook county, 

 deputies of the department whose duties were to take fertilizer 

 samples, were explicitly instructed to obtain samples of the 

 Armour goods and pay particular attention to any samples 

 similar or of the same brand as the one sent by Mr. Logan. 

 These instructions were carried out and as a result seven 

 samples of Bone, Blood & Potash Fertilizer were collected, all 

 of which showed more or less deficiency. As a result of these 

 findings, and also taking into consideration the earlier analysis 

 of the sample received from Mr. Logan, a hearing was ar- 

 ranged with W. T. Anderson, agent for the Armour Fertilizer 

 Company and Tuscarora Fertilizer Company, for July i, 191 5, 

 and at the time appointed Mr. Anderson and W. N. Martin of 

 Baltimore, attorney for the Armour Fertilizer Company, ap- 

 peared and presented testimony in behalf of the company. 

 At this time no definite settlement of the case was arranged 

 for. Other conferences followed under date of July 13, 

 August 4 and August 9 ; others appearing at the later confer- 

 ences were : Mr. Humphreys of the Chicago ofifice of the Ar- 

 mour Fertilizer Company, Mr. Phelps, Chemist from the 

 Chrome factory, and Leonard Pierce, attorney, from Houlton. 

 At the time of the conference of August 9, Mr. Humphreys 

 laid considerable stress upon the high moisture content of the 

 samples, advocating that considerable allowance should be 

 made in the interpretation of the analyses. None of these 

 conferences resulted in any definite settlement and, upon re- 

 ceipt of additional reports of analyses, we seemed to be in 

 possession of information which warranted some action and 

 steps were taken to ask the Armour Fertilizer Company for a 

 settlement before the court. It did not seem to be good policy 

 to ask for prosecution in all the cases in which a deficiency 

 liad been shown, but one was selected which seemed sufficiently 

 large to warrant proceedings ; the sample selected for the case 

 is described as follows : Collected under inspectors number 

 L G 155. analyzed as Station No. 3310, designated under the 

 trade name "Double Value," manufactured by the Tuscarora 

 Fertilizer Company of Chrome, N. J., collected from George 



