228 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST, [September i, 1885. 



to the treasury or are they ever likely to ? » We 

 do uot deuy that paddy cau be produced as cheaply as 

 Mr. Elliott contends, simply because we have mither the 

 materials before us, nor Uie experience necessary, to give 

 an opinion ot value ; but we have certain stubborn facts 

 before us which cannot be explained away. The most ob- 

 stinate of these is that, as a rule, surplus paddy to any 

 extent is not produced iu any district of the island even 

 where irrigation helps the cultivators and nolwithstanding 

 the enormous protit, at which, according to Sir. Elliott, it 

 can be grown even iu the Wanni How is this accounted 

 for ? Were paddy-growing the most unprofitable pur.suit 

 in the island there could not be less desire than there 

 is on the part of the Suihalese to attempt its cultivation 

 ou a larger scale than their absolute requirements. How 

 tlien does Mr. Elliott account for tliis— so profitable a 

 cultivation and so little de.su-e to extend it^f Surely 

 the circumstance must have been noted by bim, but we 

 SCO no reference to it either in his original paper or m 

 the letter addressed to us toilav, though we especially re- 

 ferred to it iu our last article ou the subject. To us, 

 we admit, it is incomprehensible unless the cost of pro- 

 duction has been very much underestimated. It is obvious 

 that this estimate is purely an appro.\-imat(! one. Fields 

 aie uot cultivated by day laborers and paid fur in coin. 

 By bis knowledge of the subject, Mr. Elliott is able to 

 sny that on an average l.i days' labor pruducea a bujihel 

 of padily and from that circumstance infers that the cost 

 per bushel can be no more than 37-^- cents. But after all, 

 this IS an intangible sort of calculation, J and cannot be 

 argued from as if the whole tUing were a business trans- 

 action, such as Mr. Ediott would have us believe. We 

 are asked uot to include the water-rate or the amount of 

 the ten annual instalmeuts which the cultivators are sup- 

 posed to pay back as the cost of the irrigation works 

 al-ove their fields, but why not we slionld hke to know p 

 Whether this expendituio be regarded as capital expend- 

 iture or not, anyone entering into the cultivation as a 

 business would certainly expect to derive interest for tlie 

 amount of his capital invested. Mr. Elliotts letter ex- 

 tremely interesting, but, after all, the contrast between 

 the rosy picture painted by him and the actual facts 

 lieiore us, is most marked. 



THE EICE SUPPLY : Mil. ELLIOTT IN EXPLAN- 

 ATION. 



SiE,— With reference to your article on my paper on rice 

 cultivation, will you allow me a few words in reply and 

 explanation of the errors of omission laid to my charge 

 as I thini; I can show, incorrectly ? ' 



As regard,s the cost of production, permit mo to point 

 out that I gave ample details fur Matani, and uot for 

 Batticaloa alone. The results are very much the same, viz., 

 IJ day's labor for a bushel of paddy where a crop of 30 

 bushels to the acre is secured. I may add if is two d.iis 

 where only a crop of 20 bushels is the return ; hut tliis 

 is an absurdly low rate of yi^ld iu irrigated lauds. The 

 money equivalents are 37i- cents and 5U cents per bushel 

 respectively. 



You further say on these calculitions nothing is put down 

 for commutation tax, water-rate or cost of irrigation. I 

 would indeed deserve censure if I had omitted any aliowanco 



» Here we have ignorance of an official paper published 

 last year, showing the actual outlay and return for irri"- 

 ation works. — Ed. ° 



t This was exactly our argument at the R. A. S, meet- 

 ing which, however, was ridiculed by our contemporary : 

 only we confined our criticism to the fact that certain dis- 

 tricts were more suited to palms and tea than rice growin", 

 Mr. Elliott, of course, s.ays the w.int of a ri.gular water- 

 supply prevents extension of rice cultivation. — Ed. 



J This is really too bad ; for Mr. Elliott gave themcH 

 miuule p.irtieulars of every item connected with the work of 

 pnddy-growiug ; he gave more detail.sin fact than we havefor 

 cotfee or toa, and so far as I'.utlicalua anil ATatnru are 

 concerned it is indisputable th.it he made out his pos- 

 ition. We take up the ground, on the other baud, that the 

 capabilities of each district and its populalion agriculturally 

 .should not be judged by any hard ' and fast rule, as if 

 irrigaliou was a universal panacea iu Ceylon.— Ed. 



for the ta.i on paddy lands, but reference to my paper 

 will shew I have all through cirefully allowed for tha 

 Goi'eriimriit tithe, which is the tax iu some districts com- 

 muted, though not invariably, aud when it is, generally to 

 the advantage of the grower. 



Water rate, as fully explained iu my reply, has been 

 provided for in the case of Matara, as it is a perpetual tax 

 of arupeeperacre. But it was excluded in theBatdcaloa cal- 

 culations, as there the people have elected to repay the cost 

 in ten annual instalments, and the large works have all 

 been paid for as a matter of fact. It has been in .all oases 

 under ten rupees per acre, ami 1 consider tliis charge is a 

 capital one, to he added to the cost of the property, and 

 not to be mixed up with the crop expenses. It is, I beUeve, 

 intended to make a charge for upkeep, but this will, in 

 Batticalo<i at all events, be very small {probibiy 10 cents 

 an acre) ; but it has not yet beeu imposed, and may at 

 present be headed as a"uegligable item." 



You say further I have omitted the cultivator's 

 " proportion of the cost of the irrigation works which 

 supply him with water." As you have already re- 

 ferred to "water rate" (which in Ceylon is the cult- 

 iv.itor's contribution on this account) I don't know 

 what further item you can mean. As you are doubt- 

 less aware, every hunl owner in this island, who benefits 

 by an irrigation work, is bound to repay his proportionate 

 share of the cost in ten annual instalments, or to pay 

 111 per acre iu perpetuity, which Government accepts as 

 interest on the outlay invested. Possibly this only covers 

 the amount spent in upkeep, as remarked by Mr. Dawson, 

 but Government also receive a good return (about 5 per 

 cent) on their expenditure by the increase iu the value of 

 the tithe, whether rented or commuted. 



If you roiV'r to the subsidiary distribution of thewater, 

 I may add that, in the irrigated districts, as a rule the 

 water is delivered by the works at the head of the tracts. 

 The further distribution consequently entails very little 

 trouble, and is attended to by the field servants ivithin 

 the limits of time I have charged for, as also is the cleaning 

 and repairing of the minor distiibuting channels, where any 

 exist, and the water is not simply p.issed on from field to field. 



As regards cost of transport generally, I would remind 

 you that iu at least three districts wliich will probably 

 become large surplus rice-producers, (viz., the Giant's Tank 

 and Kandclly lands, for the Tamils, and the Giruwa Pattu 

 for the Sinhalese) there is a good deal of simUarity to 

 Batticaloa, viz., in that they he within 10 to 15 miles of 

 the sea coast where not one shipping to favourable m.ark- 

 ets is available during at least one monsoon. 



As regards the island ports of the Wanny, as I am travel- 

 ing down the central road I am in a position to supply 

 you with the present I ates of transport. TakingAuuradhapura 

 as a centr.al position, where considerable quantities of paddy 

 are now beint;' produced with a promise of a good deal 

 more, I find the rate of cart hire to Matale is R12, 

 or 30 cents a bushel for a load of 40 bushels. To Jaffna 

 the hire is RI5 for a similar load, or nearly 40 cents a 

 bushel. Paddy is now selling at 62i cents a bushel at 

 Anuradhapura, I have been assured by some Jaffna cart- 

 men taking tobacco to Matale whom I questioned today. 

 They told me further they intended investing in paddy 

 on their way back, as they could sell it for 22 to 24 

 fanams (RlSTi to EPoO) per bushel in their villages on 

 the peninsula. Thus they will secure a paying load (instead 

 of probably returning empty) besides a profit of some 50 

 per cent on their investment. — Yours faitbfullv, 



E. ELLIOTT. 



Dambool, 15th August, 1S85. — Locnl " Times." 



"Tea Box" Writes from As.s.am toa contemporary:^ 

 " Why are not lea planters allowed something for their tea 

 chests y My tea boxes cost me, landed up here in A«sam, 

 about Kl-hi each, and I have to give them away to any one 

 who is kind enough to buy my teas. It i.s not fair." Tea 

 buyers may say it is the rule of the trade to allow uothing 

 for a tea box. Perhaps it is, but the sooner the rule is 

 altered the better for the planter." The planter has the 

 remedy in his own hands, and usually, we imagima, ajjplies 

 it by practically including the cost of pacldng in his calcul- 

 ation. — Mthlras Mail. 



