THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST. 
[June  i,  1897. 
U.  S.  COFFEE  IMPORTS  IN  1896. 
The  corrected  report  of  the  United  States 
Bureau  of  Statistics  makes  the  total  imports, 
exports,  etc.,  of  coffee  for  the  calendar  year  as 
'Hows 
IMPORTS, 
From— 
United  Kingdom 
France 
Germany 
Netherlands 
Other  Europe 
Central  America 
Mexico 
West  Indies 
Brazil 
Other  South  America 
East  Indies 
Other  Asia  and  Oceanica 
Africa 
Other  countries  . . 
1895.  1896. 
Pounds.  Pounds. 
4,205,826  4,865,154 
1,870,717  1,359  373 
2,739,813  5,584,094 
4,033,274  2,986,267 
555,590  2,857,892 
52,320,272  39,534,539 
31,961,939  19,641,868 
18,532,745  8,709,433 
426,579,035  447,603,789 
73,484,884  74,088,756 
16,166,002  16,648,642 
2,228,255  4,408,731 
34,616  102,037 
2,625,351  1,510,927 
Total 
Value  . . • • 
Import  cost  per  pound  (cents) 
Percentage  of  Brazil 
Percentage  of  Asia  and  Africa, 
direct 
642,338,319 
^6,512,370 
15.02 
66.4. 
2.8 
629,901,602 
«79, 999,590 
12.70 
71-06 
3.3 
The  exports  of  coffee  were  8,187,993  pounds  in 
1895  and  8,471,938  pounds  in  1896,  which, 
deducted  from  the  imports,  leaves  the  net  im- 
ports, which  are  reckoned  as  consumptions,  as 
follows  : — 
NET  IMPORTS  OR  CONSUMPTION. 
1895  (pounds). . 634,150,326  \ 1896  (pounds). . 621,429,664 
The  above  shows  that  consumption  did  not  in- 
crease, although  it  was  aided  by  a decline  of  2.32 
cents  per  pound  on  the  average  cost  of  tlie  total 
imports.  Taking  the  population  at  70,000,000, 
the  per  capita  consumption  is  8.95  pounds.  The 
above  on  the  basis  of  131  pounds  to  tlie  bag, 
represents  an  import  of  4,743,738  bags,  and  com- 
pares with  the  Coffee  Exchange  statistics  as 
follows  ; — 
Bags. 
United  States  Bureau  of  Statistics  ..  4,743,738 
New  York  Coffee  E.xchange  ..  ..  4,588,496 
Difference  155,242 
This  is  a small  difference  between  the 
nient  statistics  and  those  of  the  New  \ork  Coffee 
Fvehan^e  in  view  of  the  arbitrary  reduction  into 
fouSS?  bags,  bales,  packages  and  barrels,  vary- 
fn  ” from  60  to  200  pounds,  as  IS  necessarj)^  m the 
Exchange  or  private  compilations.  Besides,  tliere 
a;e  SaSshipments  from  one  domestic  port  to 
another  which  are  liable  to  be  included  in  the 
arrivals  or  imports  at  boLli  places.  i , , 
The  Coffee  Exchange  report  o imports  from 
Brazil  is  absolutely  correct,  and  for  tlie  yeai  1896 
Simpaves  with  tlie  Custom  House  figures  as 
Bags. 
■New  York  Coffee  Exchange  ..  •• 
U.  S.  Bureau  of  Statistics  (131  lb.  to  bag)  . . 3,416,823 
231 
Difference  • • • • 
This  is  a mere  bagatelle  and  proves  the  cor- 
rectness of  both  reports  of  the  imports  of  coffee 
a country  furnishing  over  71  per  cent,  of 
the  total  impoHs  and  shipping  it  m bags  of 
i'  . , oWe  There  is  every  reason  to  haie 
the  New  York  Collee 
Exchange. 
The  following  statement  shows  the  movement 
of  coffee  in  Europe  and  the  United  States  for 
1896,  as  follows  : 
Bags. 
Stocks  in  Europe  and  United  States,  Jan. 
1st,  1896  ..  ••  ••  1,675,160 
Arrivals  in  United  States  and  Europe  ..  11,617,901 
Total  Supply 
Less  Stock,  Jan.  1st,  1897 
..  13,293,061 
..  1,630,970 
Deliveries 
Coffee  Exchange  Report 
..  11,662,091 
..  11,627,881 
Difference  * . . . . - • 34,210 
The  above  shows  the  present  annual  reipiire- 
ments  of  Europe  and  the  United  States  to  be, 
in  round  numbers,  11,650,000  bags.  In  1896  the 
receipts  of  coffee  in  Rio  and  Santos  were 
7.319.000  bags,  equivalent  to  62.82  per  cent,  of 
the  total  requirements  of  Europe  and  the 
United  States,  thus  leaving  only  37.18  per  cent, 
to  be  met  hy  Mexico,  Central  America,  other 
parts  of  South  America  than  Brazil,  Africa  and 
the  East  Indies. 
During  the  period  1880-89  Brazil  furnished  50 
per  cent,  of  the  world’s  supply>  since  wliich 
time  coffee-planting  has  so  extended  as  to  in- 
crease Brazil’s  contribution  25  ))er  cent,  more 
than  it  was  six  years  ago.  An  extension  of 
the  industry  has  also  taken  place  in  Mexico, 
Central  America,  the  United  Gtates  of  Colombia 
and  Venezuela,  so  tliat  a supply  of  5,000,000  to 
5.500.000  bags  from  those  countries  may  reason- 
ably be  looked  for.  Last  year  all  other  countries 
exported  to  Europe  and  the  United  States  about 
4,000,000  bags. 
It  is  apparent  that  the  world’s  production  of 
coffee  is  at  pi-esent  largely  ahead  of  its  re- 
quirements, and  is  likely  to  remain  so  until 
j)rices  recede  to  a point  low  enough  to  retard 
tlie  industry.  Nothing  but  an  extensive  failure 
of  the  crops  can  prevent  coffee  ruling  on  a 
low  basis  for  some  years  to  come. — American 
Grocer,  March  17. 
THE  COFFEE  WAR. 
The  long-looked-for  decision  of  Judge  Morris,  of  th* 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  has  been  rendered  in  favor  of 
the  defendants,  the  Woolson  Spice  Company  of  Toledo, 
O.  This  suit  was  brought  by  T.J.  Kuhn  and  the  Arbuckle 
interest,  who  claimed  thatthe  Woolson  Spice  Company 
was  selling  coffee  at  a loss  against  the  interests  of  the 
minority  stockholders,  and  therefore  a perpetual  in- 
junction was  asked  for,  and  that  a receiver  be 
appointed.  Judge  Morris  holds  that  the  matter  of 
the  price  at  which  the  company  may  sell  its  coffee 
strictly  pertains  to  the  internal  management  of  the 
concern,  and  so  long  as  they  act  in  good  faith  the 
directors  cannot  be  interfered  with  by  the  court 
which  cannot  restrain  a corporation  from  selling  at  a 
low  price,  even  though  the  minority  stockholders  can 
show  that  sound  business  discretion  would  dictate  a 
different  policy.  The  testimony,  however,  showed 
that  the  Woolsons  were  selling  at  a fair  margin  of 
profit.  The  application  for  a perpetual  injunction 
was  therefore  denied.  With  regard  to  the  other 
point,  the  court  holds  that  the  agreement  of  the 
majority  stockholders  to  sell  the  product  for  a time 
at  such  a price  as  will  drive  a competitor  out  of 
business  will  not  make  the  corporation  an  unlaw- 
ful conspiracy  against  such  competitor,  nor  liable  for 
his  actual  loss,  nor  entitle  him  to  relief  in  the  courts. 
A competitor  for  public  favor  must  bow  to  that  law 
of  trade  that  allows  every  man  to  dispose  of  his 
own  property,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business, 
on  such  terms  as  he  sees  fit.  The  motion  for  the 
appointment  of  a receiver  was  therefore  overruled. — 
American  Grocer,  March  24. 
* Due  to  variation  in  European  reports. 
