STATE EXPERIMENT STATION 229 



(S. W. J. TO J. W. A.) 



Nov. 17, 1883. 



My dear Sir, I have been hoping to hear from Mr. Sedge- 

 wick before writing to you. I have also been exceedingly busy 

 getting our new laboratory ready for the fertilizer work that 

 is coming in, and have had little opportunity to think about 

 the fertilizer Law. 



The tag or stamp system I see no way of carrying out except 

 by appointing Inspectors and making a cumbersome and 

 costly machinery. I hear it intimated from creditable sources 

 that in Georgia the Inspection is suspected of not being 

 altogether above bribery, but I know nothing as to the facts. 

 The more complicated any system is made the more chances 

 perhaps of its being dishonestly administered. The Pennsyl- 

 vania system, viz. taxing per ton sold, is simple, but the only 

 evidence of sales is the sworn statement of the manufac- 

 turer or dealer. That, it strikes me, is offering a premium to 

 dishonesty, and I should expect that dishonesty would get 

 the premium ! 



Sec'y Chamberlain of Ohio writes me that the plan there 

 in use works well and satisfies everybody. In Ohio the annual 

 tax is $20, here it is $10, $20, or $30 according to whether one, 

 two or three ingredients (nitrogen, phos. acid and potash) 

 are present in the goods. 



Our present law is disliked by two classes, viz., the small 

 manufacturer and the maker of a large number of special 

 brands. As to the latter, I have heard it asserted by those 

 who claim to have been in the business, that orders for many 

 different "specials" are filled from the same heap, care being 

 taken that the Exp. Station shall be provided with carefully 

 compounded samples. This may be a libel, but it also may be 

 true! Our present law tends to check the multiplication of 

 brands or pretended brands, to reduce the work to be done 

 by the Station, and to suppress the nonsense employed to 

 humbug farmers. 



