May r, 1888.] THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
725 
tho paper to which the letter was sent. That paper, 
according to these Mincing Lane authorities, suggests 
that hy 1889-90 forty-fivo to seventy-five million 
pounds of bark, three to four times as rich as the 
average Oeylou bark, or, in other words, the equival- 
ent of six years of the world's consumption, will be 
ready for export from Java. Upon this alleged state- 
ment Messrs. Brookes & Green build an eloquent 
denunciation, more remarkable for capital letters 
than for lucidity, of the wickedness of spreading ex- 
aggerated accounts and sensational reports. Upon 
comparing tho words ascribed by our critics to "the 
paper to which the letter was sent" with those really 
appearing in The Chemist and Druggist, the former 
prove to bo nothing better thau an absurd travesty 
of our commons. So far from saying that from forty- 
fivo to seventy-five million pounds would bo ready for 
export from Java in 1889-90, we emphatically dec- 
lared that hor exports would probably not come up to 
tho 15,000,000 lb. standard of the Oeylou shipments, 
und thus the whole edifice of exaggeration and sen- 
sationalism denounced by Messrs. Brookes & Green 
proves to bw a perfect myth. 
Mr. (iustav Briegleb, of Amsterdam, whose letter 
will b) found in our correspondence columns, and 
other readers of our journal who have seen Messrs. 
Brookes h GreeD's circular, are naturally under the 
impression that "thu paper to hand by the last mail" 
is The Chemist and Druggist. It is right to say, 
however, that, upon communicating with Messrs. 
Brookes .V (freen, that firm stated that they did not 
quote from The Chemist and Druggist. At the same 
time, they refuse to reveal tho name of the paper 
which, thoy aver, contained our letter and the tra- 
vesty on our comments. They also challenge our 
right to even read, much 1. ss reply to, a circular 
which, they say, was sent to their friends only. We 
may urge upon Messrs. Brookes & Green, if they so 
particularly wish to re'aiu the strict privacy of their 
publications, to take greater precautions in selecting 
their friends than they have hitherto done. And wo 
may add that, as far as we can follow their arguments 
the greater privacy they cau secure for their reports 
the better for the cause they advocate. 
Truly amazing ideas are entertained by several 
peoplo about Miucing Lane with regard to the func- 
tions aud duties of the press. AVo could name a 
number of gentlemen in that locality, who profess 
every desire for" the welfare aud prosperity of this 
journal so long as it coufines itself to what they 
would call its own particular sphere, but bristle with 
indignation whenever we dare to trespass upon the 
sacred precincts of Mincing Lino. It has been obser- 
ved that the wholesale druggists do not interfere with 
The Chemist at.d Drugyist, and therefore demand not 
to bo interfered with by it. With regard to the for- 
mer part of this proposition, we can ouly express our 
belief that if a tithe of the (fortunately ineffective) 
boycotting tactics pursued against us had been set 
iuto operation in another part of theso islands, several 
eminent boycotters might be now undergoing a com- 
fortable diet of skilly, and reposing' luxuriously on 
the plank bed. It is surely a perfectly legitimate 
branch of the business of a journal devoted to the 
drug tradu to comment upon adulterated and spuri- 
ous articles openly offered lor sale by public auction. 
Wholesale druggists who have a reputation to pre- 
serve are as much interested as are the retailers aud 
tho public at largo that no spurious goods shall be 
sold under n false denomination, and the brokors, 
we should sny would find it an easy matter, were 
they no minded, to virtually render impossible the 
silo of admittedly worthless goods in the open 
market. Wo may claim for ourselves tho credit that 
if the authorities charged with the execution of the 
provisions of the 1'ood nnd Drugs Act should in tho 
near future include tho Mincing Lane markets within 
their sphere of antivitv, it will he in no small degree 
owing to the efforts of this journal. Wo have no 
desire whatever of encroaching upon the private affairs 
of our Mincing l.uie friends, nnd we would a*k th in 
whether it is worth the while of a low of them to 
coutlnue their elforts to put obstacles in tho path of our 
e'gitimato duties.— Chtmiit <im( Di ugjiit, March 3rd. 
JAVA CINCHONA BARK. 
Sir, — You have probably noticed that Messrs. Brookes 
& Green, in their fortnightly report upon East India 
cinchona bark, have reprinted part of my letter, published 
in the Chemist and Druggist of December 17th last, 
omitting the last two sentences. In the omitted 
sentences the opinion was expressed that a minimum 
of 4 per cent quinine in the barb may be considered 
as the vital question of ciuchona plantations, when Java 
in a few years will fall iuto the market with full crops 
of bark. 
Messrs. Brookes & Green state that the paper con- 
taining the aforesaid letter (your issue of December 
17th) reached them by mail, that the market was dull 
aud lower jast about the time the above report reached 
London, that the interests of owners of J.t7a bark 
are being seriously damaged by the report of probable 
future immense supplies from Java, and tiiat they 
have had four years ago a large assortment of samples 
of Java bark testing up to 15 per cent sulphate of 
quinine, but then anticipated that the commercial 
shipments later on would be of a lower grade of quality, 
whilst they find that the average contents of the 
Java bark sold last year fall below 3.V per cent of 
crystallised sulphate of quinine. 
The impartial reader of Messrs. Brookes k Green's 
report, if he is acquainted with their former special 
reports directed against the Amsterdam market, will 
see, as I do, in their comments upon the Amsterdam 
letter the search for a dark background to the bright- 
ness of their virtues. Nobody, I should think, ever 
accused thera of having tried to induce shipments of 
Java bark to London ; but we at Amstor iam, aud, I 
suppose, many a serious Loudon merchant with 
us, do not approve of their putting things in a wrong 
light. Their criticism of the Amsterdam letter is a 
specimen. 
Messrs. Brookes & Green state that the paper con- 
taining the Amsterdam letter of December 14th 
reached them by last mail (from Ceylon ?), and 
p -sibly damaged the London market then. Without 
commenting further upon the unlikely suggestion that 
your journal should have totally escaped the attention 
of the London drug trade interested in tho drug line 
uutil it came back from Ceylon, I would aik whether 
it is probable that a market cau be influenced by 
things to happen two years in the future 'i 
Thu last London sales aud ours of today are the 
best answer to that question. At the former a dis- 
tinctly firmer tone predominated, aud our auctions 
also went off well, putting values again very near the 
values of tho highest December figures. 
Messrs. Brookes & Green must admit that their 
imagination has played them tricks. Their solicitude 
for the woll-being of cinchona-planters in Java has 
made them see spectres, and the same rich fancy has 
induced thera to prophesy, as a certain consequence 
of the mischievous Amsterdam account of probable 
large Java crops of rich bark after 1838, grave harm 
to property aud produce of planters of Java bark. 
They have been asked whether tho Amster- 
dam letter was written with a purpose. No 
doubt it was, and that purpose is so mti.uatoly 
connected with the interest of Iheir vrotigt < 
(the Java planters) that one may wonder at their, not 
finding it out for themselves. 
The lettor was written simply for the purpose of 
drawing tho attention of cinchona-growers — no matter 
whether ia Java, Oeylou, the Hast or West In. lies, 
Africa, or South America— to the risk they trill run in 
spending money for the cultivation of bark uontaiuiug 
less than 4 per cent, sulphate of quinine. 
Messrs. Brookes li Green say that four years ago they 
obtained rich Java samples testing up to 15 per cent., 
on the basis of which they might have written it report 
calculated to frighten both buyers and s -lh rs otJa. a 
bark ; but tint they did not write such a report, as 
they realised at the time that tho samples were single 
pieces cut from tho stout barks of tho trunk* of hue 
trees, an I tin! the average te-t of shipiuen'i !i»l<-r on 
would bo of lower quality. They do not state what 
they reported on thoso remarkable samples ; it may 
however, he presumed tint their report was writtoua 
