June 1, 1900.] THE TROPICAL 
AGRICULTURIST, 
839 
and the Docks Joint Committee. — Yours faith- 
fuJly, (Signed) Wm. Martin Leake. 
Tea Clearing House Committee, 21 Mincing 
Lane, 10th April. 
. W. Martin Leake, Esq., Secretary, Ceylon Asso- 
ciation in London. 
Dear Sir, — The attention of this Committee 
bavins' been drawn to recent correspondence 
between yourself and the representative of the 
London and India Docks Joint Committee, re- 
specting the question of rates and chart;es on 
Tea, I am desired on behalf of the Tea Clearing 
House Committee testate that there is absolutely 
no foundation for the statement that the Tea 
Clearing House Committee are ruled by the 
London and India Docks Joint Committee, and 
that the latter have been in favour of increasing 
rather than of reducing the charges in connection 
,with the warehousing of tea. At no time have 
they made any such suggestion, but, on the con- 
trary, they have always advocated a reduction 
of rates with a view to meeting the applications 
made on behalf of the Importers. — I am, dear sir, 
yours faithfully, 
(Signed) Geo, T. Poock, Secretary. 
London and India Docks Joint Comrhittee, 109, 
Leadenhall Street, April 5. 
Martin Leake, Esq., Secretary, Ceylon Associa- 
tion. 
Dear Sir, — I am informed that the following 
is an extract from a letter dated the 16th May 
1899, and signed by you as Secretary of the 
Ceylon Association, and I have to ask you to be 
good enough to give me the authority upon which 
you made such unfounded statements, and which 
are calculated to do the Joint Committee con- 
siderable harm, when addressed, as they were in 
this instance, to Importers of Tea. 
" In regard to the Dock and Warehouse 
rates, the Tea Committee did its very utmost 
in 1893 to move the Tea Clearing House to 
make a change, but that Institution has a mono- 
poly ruled by the Joint Dock Committee, who 
would rather increase the rates if they possibly 
could." — Yours faithfully, 
(Signed) J. Greenway, Assistant to Manager. 
From W.Martin Leake to J. Greenway, Esq. 
April 9. 
Dear Sir, — I have yonr letter of the 5th inst. 
I must point out that my letter, from which 
you send me an extract, was written in reply to 
certain representations made by several members 
of my Association and is clearly of the nature of 
a privileged communication. 
Setting that aside, I am willing to admit that 
the word " ruled " is somewhat too strong to be 
applied to the great influence undoubtedly exer- 
cised by your Committee over the proceedings of 
the Tea Clearing House. With that exception I 
merely stated facts that seem to me unquestion- 
able. 
(1) That in 1893 my Committee attempted 
(without success) " to move the Tea Clearing 
House to make a change " in its rates. (2) That 
the Joint Dock Committee at the date of my 
letter had, consistently shown a wish to increase 
Dock rates if they possibly could. 
On ihe latter point it is not necessary to go 
beyond my own personal experience. In February 
1896, I was instructed, as Secretary of my Asso- 
ciation, to forward to your Committee a protest 
against their attempt "to secure a monopoly of 
warehousing of products by imposing a direct and 
unwarrantable charge upon all goods intended 
for delivery to craft" (see niy letter to your 
Manager 24th February, 1896). 
In 1899, at the very time when my letter, of 
which you make complaint, was wriiten 1 was 
acting in my capacity as Deputy Chairman of 
Cement Section of the London Chamber of Coni- 
meice on a Committee appointed to resist new 
charges imposed by the Joint Committee, charges 
which being subsequently shown to be illegil 
were ordered to be refunded. 
Recent writings and speeches of your Directors 
can, of course, not be quoted in support of a 
letter written last May, but having read the 
memo issued by Mr. Sydney Holland ami tlie 
recent speeches of the Dock' Chairman, I have 
difficulty in understanding in what sense your 
Committee considers a statement that it would 
gladly increase rates if possible, to be "un- 
founded. "—Yours faithfully, 
^Signed) William Martin Leake, Secretary, 
WAREHOUSE RATES ON TEA. 
27, Mincing Lane, London, 10th April. 
W. Martin Leake, Esq. 
Dear Sir,— With reference to your letter to 
Mr. A Thomson, dated 9th April, and its en- 
closures, I am at a loss to understand your re- 
marks to Mr. Greenway that your letter of 16th 
May last was " clearly of the nature of a privi- 
leged communication." 
That letter was written in reply to one signed 
by several large tea importers, headed by my- 
self, making a strong representation in favour of 
your Association taking up the subject of the 
excessive rates for working teas. 
In reply you made a positive statement to the 
effect that the " Tea Clearing House is a mono- 
poly ruled by the Joint Dock Committee who 
would rather increase rates if they possibly 
could." 
I and the other firms sent a rejoinder on the 
subject, of which we did not , even receive an 
acknowledgment. 
Finding that your Association was either unwill- 
ing or unable to do anything in the matter, I and my 
Manager, Mr, T A Williams, have never relaxed 
our efforts to bring the facts home to the growers 
of tea (on whom ni'.u/e particularly the incidence 
of the present heavy rfttes mainly fall) and to 
do what we could here to bring pressure on the 
Dock Company, who we thought should have a 
preponderating influence in the settlement of 
rates to be levied. 
To my surprise, I found that your statement 
above quoted, was contradicted point blank, by 
the Joint Dock Committee, and as a matter 
of fact it seeni-s, that in voting at the Meetings 
of the Tea Clearing House, the hand held up 
by the Dock Representative has no more weight 
than the hand held up by any of the smaller 
members of the body. 
When challenged by Mr. Greenway on the 
subject of your statemeiit to me, and niy co- 
signatories, you make what 1 must venture to call 
a very inadequate reply, and endea\'oiir to obs- 
cure the issue by reference to the ciiarges for 
the use of Dock water by barges, and to charges on 
cement. What there is germane to the subject 
of charges for warehousing tea in these questions, 
I fail to see. 
