STATE EXPERIMENT STATION 217 



either lot, if the large and small berries were examined sepa- 

 rately. Therefore the differences that would appear would not 

 of necessity stand connected with the rot, or at least would 

 throw no light on the cause of the difficulty or its remedy. In 

 no case to my knowledge has any plant-disease of the nature 

 of a rot been found to be caused by a deficiency of some one 

 or more elements in the soil or plant. 



I will write to Dr. Farlow, our best fungologist and per- 

 haps almost the only American who has thoroughly studied 

 microscopic fungi to learn if he knows anything about the 

 matter. Yours very truly, S. W. Johnson. 



(S. W. J. ToW. E. P.) 



July 7, 1879. 



My dear Sir: I have carefully read and considered the 

 draft of a bill you sent me. From all I have been able to 

 learn of the methods of fertilizer control adopted in Europe 

 and this country, I am convinced that the system of Inspec- 

 tion is the one least advantageous to the honest farmers and 

 dealers and most advantageous to the dishonest dealer and the 

 stealing politicians. 



I believe the Experiment Station system as we have it in 

 Connecticut, if actively supported by the farmers, is the best 

 in immediate results and is a system whose incidental benefits 

 are of incalculable advantage. 



I recommend you to stand by the Experiment Station and 

 help it to become what it ought to be. I fear your scheme of 

 replacing the Expt. Station by Inspection will work harm 

 to the agriculture of your State. . . . 



(S. W. J. TO G. T.) 



December 4, 1879. 



. . . The Connecticut System does not ensure that no 

 spurious or fraudulent fertilizers are sold or bought in the 

 State, but it gives the farmers the means of ascertaining the 

 composition and value of all fertilizers, feeding stuffs, etc., 



