MELSEN’S PROCESS. 16l 
first violet, and afterward brown, by the air or the influ- 
ence of an alkali.” Specifications 4, 5, and 6 (see above), 
assert facts which are practically of small importance, for 
by the use of suitable evaporating apparatus after com- 
plete clarification no injurious discoloration is subsequently 
incurred; and by the use of common lime, the hurtful acids 
may be effectually neutralized. 
The sulphurous taste said to be imparted to sugar by 
this mode of treatment, is not a serious obstacle to its 
adoption, as it is removed by exposure to the air or by the 
operation of “claying.” In a hot climate, where fermenta- 
tion is rapid, and the saccharine juice is comparatively 
pure, demanding but a low defecating power, this method 
is successful; but its merits are not apparent in this cli- 
mate in its application to sorghum cane. 
The advocates of the adoption of this method by the 
sorghum growers of the North, proceed upon the assump- 
tion that ‘‘the constituents of the sorghum and Louisiana 
cane are very nearly, if not altogether, identical ;” and 
hence it is predicted that Mons. Melsen’s discovery ‘is 
destined to exert an influence upon the production of 
sugar from the sor®hum no Jess marked and decided than 
that which it has already accomplished in the manufacture 
from the Southern cane.” This assumption, it is scarcely 
necessary to say, is entirely erroneous; the constituents of 
sorghum and Louisiana cane are by no means identical, 
and any conclusions based upon such identity, and not 
verified by experiment, are valueless. 
As a defecator of sorghum juice, I have found the bi- 
sulphite of lime much inferior to other agents that may be 
employed. One of the most experienced sorghum growers 
in this country asserts that he is “unwilling to reeommend 
its use from any evidence yet adduced.” (Ag. Rep. for 
1861, p. 303.) Though inadequate to accomplish the 
14* 
