zation is perfect. What could be more ridiculous and 

 imaginary than the above? But, notwithstanding, 

 there are many believers who are, we regret to say, 

 sadly misled. It must be remembered that it is not 

 sufficient to see crystals under the microscope to be able 

 to practically extract them, as there is a vast barrier 

 to overcome before obtaining them for commercial 

 purposes. 



As regards the numerous patents that have had 

 this object in view, or, in other words, the facilitation 

 of crystallization, they have, in all cases, been worth- 

 less, and in a few years they have been a direct loss of 

 $400,000. Not one of them has accomplished what 

 was promised. These were not, as a general thing, 

 original, but were simply a slight modification of 

 supposed principles long since known. We may say, 

 however, in defense perhaps of the well-meaning 

 inventors, that they have confounded, in many cases^ 

 granulation with crystallization. The latter is essential 

 for cane sugar. The crystal lizable sugar contained in 

 the sorghum plant diminishes as it matures, which is a 

 great misfortune. If we admit that the proper time 

 is seized for the manufacture of sugar, it must not 

 be forgotten that whatever the amount is, as indicated 

 by the polariscftpe, it does by no means follow that the 

 same is expected to exist in the syrup. Consequently, 

 in this transformation we have a loss of crystalli- 

 zable sugar, and another loss when the attempt is 

 made at granulation. It seems strange that inves- 

 tigators and writers upon sorghum and its utiliza- 

 tion have invariably added the two sugars, cane 

 sugar (sucrose) and grape sugar (glucose). (If we refer 

 to the Agricultural Reports for 1862, page 223, fifteen 

 analyses of sorghum are given, and examples of this 

 adding may be found.) Why the addition of two ele- 

 ments the one desirable, and the other not ? 



12 



