During the fall or second portion of the season, the selections

amounted to 964 samples divided as follows:

By combining the two seasons and considering the year as a whole, we have the classified results as follows:

During the year 1897 licenses were granted for 967 distinct brands of fertilizers, all of which were offered for sale in our State. As compared with 1896, the work of recording and licensing fertilizers shows the following totals:

With the number of agents, all working independently, there is, of course, more or less duplication of samples, especially of the leading brands; these samples, however, usually come from different portions of the State. In order to obtain a fair average test of the fertilizer as represented by the whole of these samples, Dr. Frear was requested to make "composite" samples by mixing all of the same brand and obtaining the composite sample from the mixture. This rule was applied to all samples of which there were two or more and in this manner 173 composite samples were obtained and tested. In making these, 465 distinct samples were used, the greatest number of any one brand being six.

There is probably no one of the numerous duties assigned to the Department of Agriculture which yields to the farmers of our State such immediate results at so little cost to them. It is estimated that we annually expend not less than $3,750,000 for fertilizers controlled by this law, and it is estimated that its results give our farmers a saving of ten per cent., or $375,000 per year. Inasmuch as the whole cost of the work is paid by license fees from manufacturers, the law is practically self-enforcing and causes no expenses to the taxpayers of the State.

FERTILIZER SUPPLIES.

When the act of June 28, 1879 (to regulate the manufacture and sale of fertilizers) became a law, farmers had not commenced to mix their own fertilizers but in anticipation of the fact that such a time would probably arrive, the law was so drafted that it would cover the

case.

Section first of the act provides: "That every package of commercial fertilizer sold, offered or exposed for sale for manurial purposes within this Commonwealth, shall have plainly stamped thereon the name of the manufacturer, the place of manufacture, and an analysis stating the percentage therein contained of nitrogen, or its equivalent in ammonia, in an available form, of potash soluble in water, of soluble and reverted phosphoric acid, and of insoluble phosphoric acid: Provided, That any commercial fertilizer sold, offered or exposed for sale which shall contain none of the above named constituents shall be exempt from the provisions of this act."

Section sixth provides that: "The term 'commercial fertilizer' as used in this act, shall be taken to mean any and every substance imported, manufactured, prepared, or sold for fertilizing purposes, except barnyard manure, marl, lime, and wood ashes, and not exempt by the provisions of section one of this act."

During the past year there has been a considerable increase in the use of home-mixed fertilizers and large amounts of nitrate of soda, sulphate of ammonia, sulphate of potash and similar single ingredient materials have been purchased by our farmers for the purpose of compounding their own fertilizers.

The trade has increased to such an extent that it would seem that this class of purchasers were entitled to as much and the same protection as those who purchase their fertilizers ready mixed. They are quite as liable to imposition in the composition of each ingredient as the other class are in the mixed goods, and it has been the desire of the Department to extend to them all possible and legal protection.

These "fertilizer supplies" are composed of one or more of the following ingredients as named in the act alluded to: Nitrogen or ammonia in an available form, of potash soluble in water, and of soluble and reverted phosphoric acid and of insoluble phosphoric acid," and are clearly within the limits of the first section of the law and are certainly not exempt under the sixth section, and the Department therefore held that they should be licensed and recorded according to law, and that they should be branded or marked in accordance with the provisions of its first section, as quoted above, but in order that there might be no mistake about it, the opinion of the attorney General was asked.

In reply to my statement of the question, the Deputy Attorney General gave the following opinion:

Harrisburg, Pa., August 10, 1897.

Hon. Thomas J. Edge, Secretary of Agriculture, Harrisburg, Pa.: Dear Sir: This Department is in receipt of your communication of recent date asking for instructions upon the question whether certain chemical compounds sold for fertilizing purposes should be branded

as required by the acts of 1879 and 1895. It seems very clear to me that the two acts above mentioned are intended to require such a marking of the packages or bags in which fertilizers are sold as will ensure protection to the purchaser thereof. Whether the fertilizers are mixed and sold by regular manufacturers, or are purchased in their chemical constituents and mixed afterwards, I think is not material so far as the proper marking of the packages or bags is concerned. It is the intention of the law to give proper notice to the purchaser of fertilizers of the constituents therein contained, and this can only be accomplished by requiring that all packages or bags containing fertilizers should be properly marked. It is my opinion that the Department is entirely right in its view of this question. Very respectfully yours,

(Signed.)

JNO. P. ELKIN, Deputy Attorney General.

Manufacturers of mixed fertilizers have, with some reason on their side, claimed that it was unjust that they should be compelled to license their mixed fertilizers and that those selling fertilizer supplies should be allowed to sell their goods on the old plan without a guarantee as to their composition or purity, and instanced the fact, already known to the Department, that, fertilizer supplies, known under exactly the same trade name, but varying considerably as to their value, were upon the market and were being purchased by farmers for the purpose of compounding their own fertilizers.

After a correspondence with some of the leading manufacturers of commercial fertilizers, not only in this State but also at the fertilizer centres of the county, it was found that dealers in such supplies outside the State claimed that the inter-state commerce law protected their sales in Pennsylvania, and that the "original package decision" protected their sale after arrival in the State and until they reached the consumer.

In arriving at such a conclusion the dealers have probably failed to note the difference in the action between the ordinary trade regulations of a state and its police regulations; the act which regulates the manufacture and sale of fertilizers is a police and not a trade regulation, and it is claimed that, while it will not affect sales made from points outside the State to dealers or consumers in the State, it will not protect any sale made in the State, and that its protection ceases with the first offer to sell or sale made in the State.

This reasoning applies with equal force to goods brought into the State from foreign countries or imported goods; as soon as they cross the State boundary and are offered for sale in the State, they are subject and are regulated by the police laws of the State, and that while sales can be made, from points outside of the State direct to the con

sumer, they cannot be legally made within the State lines until the provisions of the act for their regulation are complied with.

In the case of imported fertilizer supplies, it is found that each particular kind is usually controlled by one firm or company and hence one license taken out by that firm or company will cover all unless made by the firm, either direct or through other dealers in the State, and hence the trouble and expense of a compliance with the provisions of the law will be reduced to a minimum.

Believing that the position taken by the Department is in strict accordance with the requirements of the law and in the line of protection to the consumer, the Department will hereafter notify dealers, to whom notices are annually sent, of the decision of the Deputy Attorney General and of the claims of the Department, and it is believed that a general compliance will be found to follow.

SAN JOSE SCALE.

It is one of the wise provisions of nature that all of our insect pest: except perhaps in a few of our most recent importations, are held in check by insect and fungoid enemies, and it is seldom that this balance of power is destroyed; occasionally from some cause not yet well explained, the pest, possibly through the absence of its enemy, obtains the mastery and the maximum of loss is again experienced, but this seldom is found to take place two years in succession, and the year following such an outbreak is usually signalized by the unusual absence of the pest and the corresponding abundance of the crop thus affected. When the Hessian fly was imported at Trenton and first became known in the wheat fields of surrounding New Jersey, it was stated that farmers in this country would be compelled to abandon the culti vation of wheat; the fact was forgotten that in Europe, where they had known the fly for many years, good crops were still annually har vested in spite of its attacks. In a short time our farmers found from experience and observation that late seeding was the proper remedy, and since this has been generally adopted the loss has been reduced to a minimum.

When the potato patches of our western settlers joined those of the wild potatoes of Colorado the "Colorado potato beetle" at once improved the opportunity and rapidly passed eastwards, and we had a repetition of the experience of our New Jersey farmers with the Hessian fly of revolutionary times. For a time it appeared that we would be compelled to abandon the cultivation of the potato, but soon one