View report page

43
the chicory was declared to be present by the
vendor. At the same time the quantity of chicory
was not declared.
The case of coffee is like that of mustard, and
the law by allowing any quantity of chicory to be
added to the coffee, provided it be declared, sanctions
the possibility of a gigantic fraud. Of course if
the Goverment were in earnest about preventing
adulteration altogether, it would have positively
interdicted the addition of the adulteration. But
the public is here again consulted, and if the public
wishes to have chicory with its coffee it is to be
indulged. At the same time the public ought to
know if it wishes to have chicory with its coffee, it
had bettter buy the two separate, and take the
quantity of each which it prefers.
An instance of how the Government plays
" fast and loose " on these adulteration questions,
is seen in its refusal to take any notice of the
frauds practised by Chinese merchants on the
subject of tea. Whilst on the other hand the
Inland Board of Revenue refused to allow the
vendor of roasted coffee to add one per cent, of a
perfectly innocuous substance on the ground that it
increased the weight of the coffee, although the
manufacturer was perfectly willing to pay duty on
the quantity of the substance he used.
Arrow Root.
This substance is starch procured from various
species of Maranta, grown in various parts of the