STATE EXPERIMENT STATION 223 



able. I have, however, not found the occasion and having 

 always to work in haste, have come this year to write and 

 print my revision of trade-values without conference with 

 others. I enclose you printer's proof of my conclusions from 

 experience of 1880. . . . Please communicate your ideas as 

 to my conclusions. Doubtless with more data I should be led 

 to different results, although I believe that my conclusions 

 are substantially correct and w r ill be justified by the future 

 as they have been by the past year 's facts ! Yours very truly, 



S. W. Johnson. 



I had nearly forgotten to recur to the subject of a meeting 

 or of correspondence with Dr. Goessmann and some one in 

 Pa. For me it is, I fear, too late this year, as I must give the 

 printer my final revise in a very few days. 



(S. W. J. TO C. L. D.) 



Feb. 21, 1881. 



Dear Sir, I first learned, incidentally, on Saturday last 

 that the bill to which you refer was before the Legislature. 

 My first impressions are unfavorable to that sort of Legisla- 

 tion; if, however, adjacent States toll Conn, manufacturers, 

 it is in the nature of self-defence to reciprocate. I would be 

 glad of increase of Exp. Station Funds by any legitimate 

 method that meets the approbation of farmers and dealers in 

 the State. The proposed tax has this equitable feature that 

 it makes, or tends to make, those who use fertilizers pay for 

 the cost of having them suitably analyzed and thus kept rea- 

 sonable in price and of genuine and known quality. I will be 

 glad to appear before the committee. Yours, etc. 



S. W. Johnson. 



In a letter of May 5, 1881, Professor Johnson, again 

 referring to this fertilizer law, said: 



Its adoption in this State was the result of a move on the 

 part of some of our fertilizer manufacturers, and was strongly 

 supported by some of the leading firms engaged in this State 



