July i, 1891.] 
THE TROPICAL AtSRrOOLTU Rl ST- 
To the Editor. 
THK WEIGHING OF TEAS IN LONDON : — 
CUSTOMS REGULmONS TO BLAME. 
12, Great Tower St., E.G. Londou, May 22ad. 
Dear Sib, — Your Overland issue o£ 28th Apji^ 
coQtaining letters and obserTations about the taring 
of Ceylon t^as in Lon;5on and loss in weiglit 
Beams to call tor some comment on this side. I 
strongly sympathize with estate owners who liko 
myself are victims not of a gang of thieves and 
swindlers as some of your correspondents supposo, 
but to an iniquitous system of weighing teas imposed 
on us by the Customs Regulations. But, how tan 
they be altered? Quite recently the Indian and 
Ceylon Assooiations took the matter up aa regtirda 
weighing tea to the ^Ib, and the Customs expressed 
their willint/ness to carry this out and agreed to 
it. A strongly supported mteticg of the tea dealfra 
dead againet an innovation which would have been 
so important to the thippeis managed however 
to obtain the susphuaion of ihe new decree, and 
no reform in this direction at present seems possi- 
ble. The matter of the tare is even more dis- 
advantageous to us ; and owing probably to the 
greenness of the wood used for tea packages which 
causes them to dry and shrink in Iraneit, I ft-ar 
tinder the present system we shall ell have to 
put up with periodical severe losses in weight. 
Your short leader, sir, on page 489 Vol, X. fuTy 
expla ns to jour readers that no outsiders have f ny 
rati onsi'jilily in the matter, and I would further 
point out that no broker in Londou would allosv 
his client's tta if sent in boxes of under 28 1b 
gross to be taxed 1 lb extra for draft. In the cHse 
referred to, it stands lo reason that the 1 lb 1 ss 
per package was either from the tare being sligli ly 
above the even number of lb, or from the tea 
weighing below Ihe even number of lb, or most 
probably the loas was caused part by short t as 
part by extra tare. It is a mere coincido-ce 
that the loss on SI packages should ba 81 lb, 
and the 1 lb draft has not been taken from 
each package as evidently supposed by your 
correspondent. 
The loss in tare on a box, although it would 
show a much heavier percentage, : would be ]ust 
as likely to occur as on a che&t, and to the s.imo 
extent if the tare was just over an even number 
of lb. For instance a chest of 801b with a tare 
of 241b] J oz. would be called !i5 lb tare=los8 
15i oz. — a box of 28 ib with a tare of 9 lb li oz. 
would be called 101b tare=lcs3 15|^ oz. 
The actual system of weighing and the security 
we have against any unfairness have so frequently 
been referred to in your columns it is needleea to 
refer to them Bgaia, but. the clearest latter on the 
matter that 1 can lay my hands on just now is 
that in your Overland issue of 15th Feb. 1889, 
signed " Bonded Warehousekeeper," Certainly to my 
mind tha most important guarantee in the inteies'.s 
of shippers is that tea being an article of con- 
sumption subject to duty, we may be quite sure the 
Customs authorities tihe good tare that the weight 
shall be in noway minimized. One of your coires- 
pondents afks who gets the tea that is lost to the 
shipper. The answer to that is the grocer or r tail 
shopkeeper, who breaks up the package that he 
has bought from ihn wholesale dealer, always cal- 
culates on exiia weight beyond his 1 lb draft, and 
by the system under discussion may be tolerably 
certain of getting it. 
As regards sweepings. Any spillage that is made 
in drawing samples or otherwise has to be made good 
by the dock or warehousekeeper not for the benefit 
of the importer whose weights have already been 
defined by the clerks of the Customs and warehouse 
before samples are drawn, but for tha benefit of 
the buyer who takes care to see he gets what ha 
is entitled to. As for imagining any ooUusion 
between those authorized to see the tea weighed 
and the dock or warehouse clerk it would be quits 
impossible ; and if it were possible it would mean 
a conspiracy so vast and ramified that nothing in 
modern timf s has ever approached it, not even tho 
Tammany Bing. 
Subjoined is a comparison of four shipments from 
two estates in Dikoya comparing loss in weight of 
factory-bulked teas with those bulked in London, 
and from whioh may be inferred that factory 
bulking owing to the system of taking an average 
tare causes a greater loss in weight. With Indian 
teas I am told the loss in weight in the higher 
grades is always far heavier than in the lower*grados 
and it seems it ia the same with Ceylon teas. On 
this point at present I can offer no opinion. 
Apologizing for trespassing so much on your 
space, and hoping that the importance of the 
subject will pit ad for me, I remain, dfar air, 
yours faithfully. JOHN HAMILTON. 
NEWTON, DIKOTA. FACTORY BULKED. 
VESSEL—" GAKKWAR." 
Invoice 
Nett 
Grades. 
weiglit. 
Pkgs. 
weight. 
Draft. 
B. P. 
„. 2,300 
46 
•J.ib'i 
46 
Pek. 
... 1,512 
420 
36 
1,428 
38 
Pek. sou. 
10 
404 
10 
Sou. 
40 
1 
38 
1 
B. P. 
Pek. 
Pek. sou. 
Dust 
B. P. 
Pek. 
Pek. sou. 
B. md. 
B. P. 
Pek. 
Pek. sou. 
B. rail. 
Loss. 
2 1b. 
48 „ 
1 „ 
57 lb. 
Loss nearly f of a lb. per package. 
Vessel—" Rewa." 
2,950 59 2,8.37 69 S4 lb. 
2,244 61 2,164 51 39 , 
630 15 610 15 5 
210 3 SOI 3 6 .. 
91 lb. 
Loss about f of a lb. per package. 
Vessel—" Mybmidon." 
2,145 S9 2,060 39 4« lb. 
2.295 51 B,184 51 60 „ 
798 19 745 19 SI „ 
65 1 63 1 1 „ 
141 lb. 
Loss over l;J lb. per package. 
Vessel— " oakfa. " 
4,1.34 78 3,958 78 98 lb. 
3,825 85 3,651 85 89 „ 
1,134 27 1,07G 37 31 „ 
SCO 4 292 4 4 „ 
222 lb. 
Loss over I J lb. per package. 
"LYNSTED ' 
BOGAWANTALAWA— BULKED IN 
LONDON. 
VkSSKL— ' GaEK WAB .'• 
Grades. 
Invoice 
Pig*. 
Nett 
Draft. 
Loss. 
B. P 
weight. 
weight. 
. 1,960 
35 
1,898 
36 
27 Ib- 
Pek 
1,700 
34 
1,649 
34 
17 
Pek. sou. .. 
1,400 
28 
1,369 
28 
3 
B. md. .. 
45 
1 
4.S 
1 
1 >. 
Dust 
78 
1 
76 
I 
1 .1 
B. P. 2 900 
Pek 2,397 
Pek. sou.... 1,750 
Total ..49 lb. 
Extra lo»9 nearly i lb. per paokage- 
yi;»9HL— "BiWA.'' 
68 2,814 58 28 1b. 
51 2,322 51 24 , 
35 1,697 35 18 ..' 
Total 70.. .Ib 
Extra loss iinarly J lb. a package 
