April i, 1891 .] 
TH£ TROPJCAt AGRICULTURIST. 
691 
THE PUBLIC AND PEI VATE SELLING OP TEA. 
We had brought to our notice a short time 
back the opinion held by Mr. J. Boberts of Messrs. 
S Bueker & Co. as to the probable cffeets of the 
system under which a not inconsiderable proportion 
of the produce of cur tea estates is sold. We are 
not personally oouoerned a? to whether that 
opinion oan be justified to the extent which 
Mr. Boberts evidently thinks that it can 
be ; but the views entertained by so good an 
authority should certainly receive every con- 
sideration. But we were not prepared to learn 
as we have lately done, to how great an extent 
tfie system of selling tea through the agency of 
private friends at home has spread. We have 
only recently been told — upon good authority 
— that the produce of one tea estate in Ceylon, 
which yields annually some 55,000 lb. of made 
tea, had boon sold through tuoh an agency to the 
large figure of 45,000 1b., and that confident 
hopes were enteitainid by its pioprie'.ors that 
the balance which has hitherto had to bo parted 
with in the open market will, during the pre- 
sent year, find customers through the same private 
channels. 
Our informant in this matter tells us that 
for the quantity thus disposed of priva’ely, 
the proprietor of this particular estate, 
netted for the entire quantity fully three- 
pence per pound more than he would have 
done had he sent his crop to market through 
the ordinary channels. If we may accept this 
statement as being fully reliable, there can 
be no doubt that the system of distribution 
adopted must present very enticing advantages 
and, despite the threat held out by Mr. Eoberts 
that in such oases of its adoption as may become 
known brokers in Mincing Lane would inactioally 
boycott the teas of their offending proprie- 
tors, there oan be little reason to think these 
threats oan bo productive of much effect. 
Every one of our planters would, if they coil’d, 
resort to any justifiable means for obtaining the 
highest returns potsible for his teas. But we 
should be inclined to think that the circle of 
those who could achieve the success above recorded, 
must be a very narrow one indeed. As was re- 
marked in London to our correspondent, very 
many of our estate proprietors are bound by the 
conditions under which they have obtained finan- 
cial help, to ship all the tea they oan grow to the 
parties who have so assisted them. This restric- 
tion must certainly prevent a very largo number of 
Ceylon tea planters from even attempting to enter on 
the course of parting with their teas through 
any private or friendly agency. 
Of course wo oan realize that, as has hren 
pointed out by Mr. Eoberts, the brokers in Mincing 
Lane, the men who make their livelihood by public 
dealing in tea, must regard with strong disfavour 
a system which operates to diminish the bulk with 
which they have to deal. If the fact be as stated 
that an additional profit oan be secured to the 
grower of throepcnco (or even twopence) per pound on 
all teas eo privately disposed of, we may be sure that 
to that extent the brokers and other middlemen will 
ho deprived of profit. It must be natural that the 
trade in London should not complacently view 
what it will doubtless oonsider to bo an encroach- 
ment upon their just rights. P’reo trade in the 
abstract has a host of supporters ; but when the 
application of its principle injuriously affects per- 
sonal p diets, those principles arc in such cases 
not quite so thoroughly appreciated. It would bo 
no surprise, therefore, to us to learn tliat every 
legitimate means would bo used to prevent their 
application in this particular case of the private 
distribution of tea. While admitting that they 
cannot help the exercise of private right to dispose 
of crops to the best advantage of the grower, 
the brokers, we can well understand, might in 
self defence say: — “Well if you will go behind our 
backs and employ what is practically an unpaid 
avenoy, to the exolusion of ourselves from sharing 
in your profits, when you are forced to come to 
us we will soon show you that we will have all 
your favours or none at all. We will not consent 
to be made a simple convenience of.’’ 
So far as we are personally aware there has 
not as yet occurred a single ease of this nature. 
We have not heard of the product of any Ceylon tea 
estate having been thus “ boycotted” in the Mincing 
Lane Sale Booms. Nevertheless it would not be 
surprising if such instances did eventually come 
under observation, and those who are practising this 
pystc-m of being their own distributors will have 
to reckon how far the advantage gained might be 
counterbalanced by a practical exolusion of their 
teas from public oompetition. For, it is possible, 
that when teas are sold privately in the way pointed 
out with an established price, any attempt at ad- 
vantage through a sudden rise in the public price 
of tea might have to be sacrificed. 
- 8 > 
THE ALVTADEEIA TEA CO. OF CEYLON 
LTD. 
To the Editor of the “ Ceylon Observer," 
Colombo, Feb. 26th. 
Dear Sir, — I send you herewith report pro- 
ceedings at the Annual Meeting of the shareholders 
of this Company held yesterday together with 
the Keport of the Directors. — 1 am, dear sir, yours 
faithfully, B, G. L. BKEMNEE, Secretary. 
General Meeting. 
'I’he third annual general meeting of the Yataderia 
Tea Company of Ceylon, Limited, was held at the 
Offices of the Company, 13, Queen Street, Fort, Co- 
lombo on February 25tb, pursuant to notice. 
Mr. H. V, Maieeield in the chair and the follow- 
ing shareholders were present : — Messrs D- Fair- 
weather, John H. Starey (Managing Director), J. E. 
Fairweather, E. 8 . Anderson, G. W. Carlyon, and 
B. G. L. Bremuer (Secretary), and by Attorney Mr. 
W. Church. 
The Secretary read the notice convening the 
meeting. 
The minutes of the last annual general meeting 
were duly confirmed. 
The report of the directors having been taken as 
read Mr. H. V. Masefield moved its adoption. The 
Managing Director in seconding the motion offered 
the following remarks upon the accounts and business. 
He had to point out a slight misprint in parenthesis 
in the profit and loss account: the amount written off 
for depreciation should bo Kll,051 instead of ElO, 826. 
The actual profit for the year was E34,602T8 being 
rather over 18 per cent, but in no case would the 
amount written off for depreciation have been avail- 
able for dividend in view of the resolution of the 
two previous geuerol meetings to keep capital 
account down to E350 per cultivated acre. The cost 
on Board might be considered satisfaotory. The item 
for interist was not likely to recur. The question of 
paying ail interim dividend last October tad been 
cartfully considered by the Board, but as exchange 
was rising and tea was weak on the market, and as 
the money must have been borrowed it was decided 
to defer such a division. The cost of the Factory had 
been 1119,434, which seems large, but it was constructed 
under exceptional difficulties and is a thoroughly 
satisfactory building. Jn expectation of large crops 
it had been deemed e.xpedient to build another wither- 
