July i, 1891.] 
THE TROPICAL /WmrOWLTURlST. 
71 
5iotiti^)Bfjond$n<)0* 
To the Editor. 
the weighing op teas in LONDON 
CUSTOM.•^ EEQULATION8 TO BLAME. 
13, Great Tower St., E. 0. London, May 82ad. 
Deab Sir, — Y our Overland issue of 28th Apri' 
containing letters and obaerralions about the taring 
of Ceylon teas in London »ud loss in weight 
teems to call for some oomment on this side. I 
strongly sympathize with estate owners who like 
myself are viotims not of a gang cf thieves and 
swindlers as some of your oorrespondents suppose, 
but to an iniquitous system of weighing teas imposed 
on US by the Customs Segulations. But how can 
they be altered 7 Quite recently the Indian and 
Ceylon Assooiations took the matter up as regards 
weighing tea to the Jib, and the Customs expressed 
their willingness to carry this out and agreed to 
B. A strongly supported meeting of the tea doslera 
dead against on innovation which would have been 
•0 important to the shippeis mauaged however 
to obtain the suspension of ihe uew decree, and 
DO reform in this direction at present seems possi- 
ble. The matter of the tare is even more dis- 
advantageous to us j aud owing probably to the 
greenness of the wood used for tea pack'iges which 
causes them to dry and shrink in transit, I fear 
under the present system we shall all have to 
put up with periodical severe losses in weight. 
Your short leader, sir, on page 480 Vol,X. ful'y 
expla ns to your readers that no outsiders have eny 
roejonsibilityin the matter, and I would further 
point out that no broker in London would allow 
hi8 client's t<a if sent in hoxfs of under 28 1b 
gross to be taxed 1 lb extra for draft. In the case 
teferred to, it stands io reason that the 1 lb 1 ss 
pet package was either from the taro being shgh ly 
above the even number of lb, or from the tea 
weighing below iho even number of lb, or most 
probably the loss was caused part by short t as 
part by extra tare, ft is a more coinoidc.ice 
that the loss on 81 packages should be 81 lb, 
und the 1 Ih dratt has not been taken from 
each package as evidently supposed by your 
correspondent. 
'n taro on a box, although it would 
now a much heavier percentage, , would be just 
as likely to occur as on a chest, and to the same 
ni IK w*® number 
, intlaiioe a chest of 801b with a tare 
, ^ *4 ett- would bo called 261b tare=lo8S 
^*8 ‘b with a tare of 9 lb Ij oz. 
ThB 101b tBre=losa 16J oz. 
WB ho„***'^ • of weighing and the security 
. 1 “I'amst any unfairness have bo frequently 
refer columns it is needless to 
mntfBr eKre®*? “8®®, but the clearest letter on the 
Umt in . ‘ ®y hands on just now is 
thrned “ n a ‘®®“® Feb. 1989, 
mfnd tlio ,°“'^^'*^"^®'‘®houBekceper.'’ Certainly to my 
of oh r. guarantee in the inteieava 
sumr^tfn'^f'® K-' > being an article of con- 
Ouat^rtiB ®“hj®®; .*® ^uty, we may be quite sure the 
Ihall .cuthont.es tske good care that the weight 
uomL, One of your oorres- 
sr. nnr 'b® ‘®« that is^ lost to the 
shnn^oonn'^*** 1 ®® 1"^'^,*'° that is the grooer or r. tail 
haa^hnii*^ hi bj®®ha up the package that he 
oulatBo the wholesale dealer, always oal- 
culates on extra weight beyond his 1 lb draft, and 
oertaL ofSing" t" ‘°'®«bly 
As regards sweepings. Any spillage that is mads 
in drawing samples or otherwise has to be made good 
by the dock or warehousekeeper not for the beneiit 
of the importer whose weights have already been 
defined by the clerks of the Customs and wsrebouae 
before samples are drawn, but for the benefit of 
the buyer who takes ears to see he gets what be 
is entitled to. As for imagining any collusion 
between those authorized to see the tea weighed 
and the dock or warehouse olerk it would be quite 
impossible ; and if it were possible it would mean 
a oonspiraoy so vast aud ramified that nothing in 
modern limes has ever approached it, not even the 
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 which may be inferred that factory 
bulking owing to the system of taking an average 
taro oauaea 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^grades 
end it seems it is the same with Ceylon teas. On 
this point at present I can oiler no opinion. 
Apologizing (or trespassing so much on your 
space, aud hoping that the importance of the 
subject will pLad for me, I remain, dear air, 
yours faithfully. JOHN HAMILTON. 
NEWTON, DIKOTA. FACTORY DULKED. 
ViMSBi.— " Gabkwah.” 
Invoice 
Nott 
Grade®. 
weight. 
l*kg8. 
weight. 
Dmft. 
Lou. 
n. p. 
... a,:iOu 
40 
2,2ft2 
4n 
21b. 
Pek. 
... 1,512 
... 420 
S6 
1,49B 
3tf 
48 „ 
Pok. sou. 
10 
404 
10 
n 
Hou. 
40 
1 
38 
1 
1 .. 
.57 lb. 
Loss nearly j of a lb. pep package. 
Vesskl-'iRkwa.” 
B. P. 
... 2,950 
69 
2,837 
59 
Pek. 
... 2,244 
61 
2,164 
51 
Pek. sou. 
... 630 
16 
CIO 
15 
Dust 
... 210 
8 
SOI 
3 
94 Ib. 
Loss about j of a lb. per package. 
Vessel—" Myrmidon.” 
B. r. 
... 2,145 
.89 
2,(>60 
39 
461b. 
Pek. 
... 2,295 
61 
t,184 
51 
60 „ 
Pek. sou. 
... 798 
IB 
746 
10 
34 „ 
B. md. 
... 66 
1 
63 
1 
1 •• 
ui Ib. 
Loss over H lb. per package. 
Vessel— “ Oan PA. ” 
B. P. 
... 4,134 
78 
3,958 
78 
98 lb. 
Pok. 
... 3,825 
SJ) 
8,651 
86 
89 „ 
Pek. sou. 
... 1,134 
27 
1,076 
27 
31 „ 
B. md. 
... 300 
4 
292 
4 
4 3 , 
ana lb. 
Loss over IJ lb. per package. 
‘‘LYNSTBD " BOQAWANTALAWA— BULKED IN 
LONDON. 
Vessel—' 0 aeiwar.” 
Grader. 
iDvotoe 
weight. 
Pkg#. 
Nett 
weight. 
Draft. 
Loss. 
B. P 
. 1,960 
35 
1,898 
35 
27 lb 
Pek 
. 1,700 
34 
1.649 
34 
17 
Pek. 80 U. .. 
. 1,400 
28 
),ac9 
98 
S 
B. md. .. 
. 45 
1 
43 
1 
1 .. 
Dust .. 
. 78 
1 
76 
1 
1 ., 
Total .,49 lb. 
Extra loaa nearly J lb. par package - 
B. P 3 900 
Pek 9,097 
Pek. sou.... 1,760 
Veisel- "Rewa.” 
58 3,814 
61 3,133 
SS 1.697 
68 98 lb. 
61 34 „ 
35 18 „ 
Total 70,. ,1b 
Extra loss aaarly f lb, a package 
