Oct. 1, 1898.] THE TROPICAL 
AGRICULTDEIST. 
281 
matter to the tei planter, and more par- 
ticularly to the Indian as compared with tiie 
C^iylon planter. The Indian average price of tea is 
distinctly hi^^her than tiiat of Ceylon, as is also 
the cost of production. To raise the value of the 
rupee means a compulsory increase in the cost ; 
for the tea sold in London produces a less number 
of rupees when the sterling receipts are exchanged 
into Indian currency, and, at tlie same time, the 
expeniliture on the estates is pretty well at a 
uniform level, with a disposition to expand. 
The currency policy of the Indian Government 
has caused the value of the rupee in the last two 
years to rise Id each year to an aveiage price last 
year of Is S^d per rupee, and the consequent 
reduction in the number of rupees obtained for 
the £1, as compared with the preceding year, was 
about 7 per cent. Of course, this does not mean 
an increase in expenses to that extent, for certain 
charges are met in gold but on tlie whole, the 
change has led to a reduction in profits of at 
least 4 to 5 per cent, each year. In many 
industries such a reduction would have been 
followed by less of the ))roduot being thrown upon 
the market, but unfortunately the output of 
tea cannot be thus regulated. To [iroduce 
tea means the planting of shrubs whicli 
have to grow for at least four years ijefore 
they can be stripped of their leaves. In the 
seasons prior to 1897 the tea planter had 
been adding heavily to the area under plants, 
and consequently there was bound to be automatic 
addition to the output, as the following table 
will show : — 
INDIA : 
1897. 
Acreage 
Average Price 
Year. 
Crop. 
under Tea. 
Indian Tea. 
Lb. 
Acres. 
Per lb. 
1886 
82,42.5,812 
298,219 
12(1 
1887 
92,252,082 
312,803 
ll|d. 
1888 
99,792,544 
.321,327 
lOid. 
1889 
107,012,875 
333,701 
lOid. 
1890 
112,036,000 
344,827 
lOJd. 
1891 
123,867,000 
362,437 
lOid. 
1892 
121,994,000 
374,869 
lOd. 
1893 
132,247,000 
395,839 
9id. 
1894 
134,713,000 
422,551 
9|d. 
1895 
135,500,000 
436,000 
9d. 
1896 
146,500,000 
450,000 
8|d, 
1897 
148,250,000 
470,000 
8ja. 
Company. 
Crop. 
Allynngger . . 913,709 
Assam .. 3,50J,480 
Assam Frontier 3,229,146 
Attaree Kbit. 
Balijan 
Borelli 
Brahmapootra 
British Indian 
Cliargola 
Chubwa 
Dmjeeling 
Dejoo 
Dooars 
Doom-Dooma 
East India and 
Ceylon 
Empire of India 
Jhanzie 
Jokai 
Jorehaut 
Lebong 
Lnngla 
Blajuli 
Scottish Assam 
Singlo 
* Loss, 
later on 
Owing to last bad season, the increase in the 
output is much less than the addition to the 
plucking area might have led us to expect, and 
possibly an improvement might have been seen in 
the price had it not been for the poor quality of 
much of the tea turned out, and the heavy stocks 
that were on the market at times. In these 
circumstances a heavy reduction in profit was 
only to be expected, and the following tables show 
how severely the companies have suffered. In 
these tables we have endeavoured to show the 
results of the injportant companies, but it will 
be noted that two large concerns — the Consolidated 
Tea and Lands and Amalgamated Estates — are 
not included. They have been purposely omitted, 
as the manner of drawing up prohts pursued by 
those two companies is so peculiar that we believe 
it ^vould mislead rather than inform the public 
if they were treated in the same way as the rest. 
We dealt pretty fully with these concerns iu our 
issue of four weeks ago. 
852,250 
305,686 
583,464 
2,254,616 
811,446 
2,095,711 
937,944 
617,016 
420,128 
3,526,473 
1,812,990 
1,710,929 
594,066 
825,091 
3,691,159 
1,562,959 
501,000 
1,710,984 
899,690 
485,366 
1,465,089 
Net Div. 
Profit, on 
Ord. 
3 
174 
4: 
5 
10 
4 
15 
5 
4,965 
31,288 
11,174 
2,678 
2,572 
2,901 
17,202 
2,685 
8,602 
4,042 
5,563 
611^ 
24,487 
18,588 
7,134 
30,041 
3,933 
22.434 
12,302 
8,444 
7,608 
3,574 
2,009 
7,233 
nil 
3 
9 
Ad'ied Sum 
to + 01- paid 
taken from away 
— Reserve iu 
or amount Divi- 
forward. dends. 
+ 100 
— 1,461 
+ 5,189 
—6.59 
—727 
—660 
+ 2S 
—1,383 
—448 
—908 
—1,207 
—672 
+ 37 
—2,067 
4,930 
32,753 
5,750 
3,336 
3,100 
3,460 
17,175 
3,866 
9,270 
4,950 
6,771 
24,900 
20,625 
preference shares. 
Company. Crop. 
13 
12i 
3 
t 
5 
1 
No dividend, bat one 
4 per cent, dividend 
—697 
—286 
—2,747 
—2,598 
—2,669 
—134 
—1,391 
7,765 
29,985 
6,680 
25,033 
13,000 
8,2UG 
9,000 
"1,970 3.979 
+ 116 6.2110 
may be paid 
oa 6 per cent. 
1896. 
Div. 
Net on 
Profit. Ord. 
Allynugger 
Assam 
lb. 
935,977 
3,429,510 
Assam Frontr. 3.312,761 
Attaree Khat 874,171 
Balijan .. 304,035 
Boielli . . 586,604 
Brahmapootra 2,282,431 
British Indian 874,711 
Ohargola 
Chubwa 
Dirj eeling 
Dejoo 
Dooars 
2,002,367 
968,093 
603,550 
449,085 
3,025,366 
Doom-Dooma 1,851,364 
East India & 
Cevlon .. 1,529,334 
Empire of India2,984,6 19 
£ p.c. 
5,3.39 3 
43,294 20 
27,834 6 
4,823 8 
5,793 12 
4,1.53 5 
26,831 
5,361 
15,556 
7,445 
9,601 
3,510 
29,954 
31,332 
20 
f 
10 
10 
6 
8 
12i + 
12i 
Jhanzie 
Jokai 
Jorehaut 
Lebong 
Lungia 
Majuli 
967,907 
3,466.609 
1,803,446 
554 .563 
1,865,792 
875,162 
Scottish Assim 510,120 
Singlo .. 1,635,224 
Added to + 
or taken 
from — 
Reserve or 
Amount 
Forward. 
£ 
339 
5,862 
5,047 
5,191 
1,918 
78 
3,932 
1 2Vo 
2,48 1. 
l,Sd5 
1,359 
— 55 
r 5,0i 
j 11,6 4 
1 1,364 
I 15,429 
L 1.1^1 
— 597 
1,477 
2,469 
1,217 
178 
1,150 
74 
Sum 
paid 
away 
in 
Divi- 
dends. 
£ 
5 000 
37,432 
22,300 
5,340 
3,875 
4,075 
22,900 
8,918 
12,871 
5,610 
8,125 
3,486 
24,000 
19.687 
r 
I 
11,113 
11,409 
8,350 
28,'JOO 
20,000 
9,847 
12.000 
4,798 
5,571 
9,325 
12,703 
30,046 
9521 
27,4it3 
18,522 
12,682 
13217 
4 976 
6,761 
9,624 
From the above it will be seen that a reduction 
in dividend was almost the rule, and even then 
the actual rate of distribution was usually only 
made ))Ossible by trenching on the reserve or 
balance forward. Two companies in the list 
managed to maintain their distributions, but in 
1896 the.y had put large sums to reserve, and, of 
course, nothing of the kind was done this time, 
whilst one of the two liad to draw freelj- from the 
balance toi ward. There has been much discussion 
about the policy of the boards of the bettor com- 
panies in reducing tlieir dividends so freely when, 
in many cases, they iiad considerable leservesat 
their disposal. But, after all, these good cow. 
