, 1885-01-07

ceding season had not been sold at all, and
remained unsold for a long time after; and
probably therefore what was thought to
have been sales were nothing but estimates
of value exhibited on the Directors ac-
counts laid before the shareholders.
The statements recorded above shew no
further foundations for their assertions, al
though on the other hand we see no reason
for disbelief or positive doubt of their gem
eral truth.
have, however, before me a detailed ac-
count of the business of a large German
factory for the year 1SS3-S4 as it was laid
before a meeting Of shareholders by the
Directors. The account is found III a pam
phlet published in Copenhagen in October
last by Mr.. w. A. Tutein, and gives the
following information:
Expenditure -. ------.MkS. I,404,Oo4
/ Income from sugar -1,So2, 800
do. from molasses 4S,79
from last year 800. 1870 1,94S:4oo
gain 493,7 IT'S
Looking at the particulars we find, that
the expenditure comprises neither interest
on capital nor anything for depreciation of
buildings and plant for the two items
q, 1869 for repairs ON buildings and $500
for repairs on utensils $4,000, cannot be
classed as such) nor of tantiemes or other
customary remuneration TO the directors.
1t does not appear from the account, whe
therall or only part ofthe produce, and in this
case how much, had been sold, and how much
put down at an evaiuatiOn. This however
concerns the shareholders alone what in
terests us is to ascertain the quantity OF
sugar produced during the twelvemonth
and thA money Snpnt On tlA NrOuuttlOn.
after which it will be an easy matter to de-
eide, what is the lowest price, at which it
must be Sold, if it is to cover the expentl-
ture.
The cost for the year we have seen to be
NIX. 1,45+, 776=3363,670; the quantity Of
sugar produced is seen from the account to
have been 500 35 kiloS. = 50, $40 in
round numbers cwts., and that of the mo-
lasses 10 SI3, 900 kilos. With the weight of
the m ,laSseS, however, We don't require to
meddle, We have to look to the sugar alone,
bat when VT come to the question or costs,
we nave OF course To deduct from it the
revenue from the moiaSSeS, which is aS
stated above about Nix. 10000. The reve-
me from the sugar we have seen to be
1898 o Nix, which shews the revenue
from molasses to be l-38th of that from
sugar. The latter reduced to dollars and
cents is. = $47O,600, the formar =312,200,
and this last sun deducted from the whole
cost, $685. go, leaves 1851 ,370as the sum it
has taken to produce $1,000 cwt. of sugar.
Now what is the lowest price at which a
hundreaweight of this sugar must be sold
i'll order to meet the bare cost Of purcllaS-
ing the roots and making sugar out of it.
The answe is 1886 pr. c~entner, and What
Soever price, at which the article has been
sold lower than this, constitutes a loss, to
which is to be added the loss of interest
and from deterioration, and which would
be still greater, If the bounty from Govern
ment did not interfere.
From the account with which | nave
here occupied myself, it is not TO be seen,
whether the Company concerned was one
of those, whore the root-growers partici-
pate Ill the profit Tor lossl OF the fabrication
(Antheiisiabriken). The question would so
far concern us. as in the lastmenti0ned
kind of undertakings the growers, once III
terested in the fabrication, might be unwlll-
ing to abandon an affair, and rather submit
to a loss on the cultivation than let the
affair come to a dead stand still, and in
such cases the sugars might be brought
into the market with less cost, but also
with less inducement or temptation for
others to produce the roots. On the whole
/ 1t is to be kept in view, that the fervour
with which the production has been driven
I on, has been in a considerable degree