TOBACCO.

257

It appears from the preceding statement, that the chemists made no attempt at a truechemical analysis, but contented themselves with a physical examination of the appear-ances, and with the single process of fermentation to detect sugar, by the production ofalcohol; and yet they declare the presence of sugar in the tobacco which containednone ; as in samples F, 0, and B. They did not search for saline matter, such as nitrateof potash, alum, common salt, nitrate of ammonia, muriate of potash, or carbonate ofpotash, and in fact do not seem to have made any analytical research for any such for-eign bodies ; so that if the sugar had been left out (as a skilful adulterator would havedone), and if the foxglove-leaves had been well browned by tobacco-juice, none of theadulterations would have been detected.

Mr. R. Phillips says, in his examination before the committee “ generally speakingwe did not employ chemical tests,” but it was principally by mechanical analysis andexamination of the plant that they judged. When asked if he could obtain alcoholfrom sugar of milk, Mr. R. Phillips replies, “ I think not.” Question 7,555.

“ 7,597. Chairman.—- Will you [Mr. R. Phillips ] look at your report, letter C, adul-terated with sugar estimated at 1 per cent. ? I asked you the question, whether youcould discover the adulteration, if made with sugar of milk ; and your answer was, ‘ No,I believe not, for I think it would not ferment. 5

“ 7,598. That specimen was mixed with 5 per cent, of sugar of milk, and 3 per cent,of other articles, earthy matters, making altogether 8 per cent.; your report is, ‘ adul-terated with sugar, estimated at 1 per cent. ; 5 how do you reconcile your detecting sugarthere, when you said that you could not detect sugar of milk 7—I said that I spoke fromthe best of my recollection, and that is my recollection. 55

“ 7,632. Letter 0, you [Mr. R. Phillips ] report as being ‘ adulterated with sand andsugar; the amount of the first estimated at 2, and the second at 3 per cent., 5 thereforethat is reported as adulterated to the extent of 5 per cent. ?—Yes.

“ 7,633. That specimen is stated to be ‘ 13 pounds 9 ounces of tobacco mixed with12 ounces of ground stalk ; 5 what should you say to that 7 Are you perfectly satisfiedthat the sugar in this specimen was foreign matter ?—I have no doubt of it; and withrespect to the increased quantity of sand, that might come in with the increased quan-tity of stalks, which always contain a larger quantity than leaf-tobacco.”

“ 7,637. But are you the least shaken in your opinion as to this analysis, by its beingstated to you, that that which was presented to you was tobacco mixed with 12 ouncesof stalk 7— Not the. least, neither with respect to sugar nor sand ; confirmed with respect tosand, and not shaken with regard to sugar.”

“ 7,640. Here is an addition of eight per cent, of stalk ; do you imagine that thatwould give two per cent, of sand upon the whole amount ?—It seems a large amount,but I can not account for it in any other way; it would increase it, but I can not say towhat amount.”

“ 7,645. Taking the specimen letter Q, on which you were before examined, in whichyou have stated, ‘ adulteration at 2 per cent.if informed that eight per cent, ofmuriate of potash, and other soluble matters were mixed, do you not consider thattobacco might be adulterated by those matters, which you could not discover asadulterations, to the extent of 5 or 6 per cent., without the possibility of detec-tion 7—I think they might, with such matter us that, without the possibility of detec-tion.”

Mr. R. Phillips says, in answer to question 7,673, that he never saw nicotine, andce never saw anybody that saw it. 55 * Now he has seen me often, and I have a specimenof pure nicotine, which I showed to the committee in my examination, and which Ishall be happy to show him at any time.

“ Mr. George Phillips called in and examined.

“ 7,767. What situation do you hold in the excise 7—That of an examiner.

“ 7,768. What are the duties of an examiner 7—They are various, but I have beenemployed chemically.

“ 7,769. How long have you been in that situation 7—About two years.”

“ 7,773. Have you been educated as a chemist 7—No, I am self-educated. 55

c£ 7,775. Have you examined all those specimens which have been suspected to beadulterated tobacco 7—Yes, I have examined the whole of them.

“ 7,776. And you were employed at Gainsborough, Liverpool, and Manchester, inthose different seizures and trials which took place 7—Yes, I was present at the wholeof them.

t: 7,777. You were also associated with Mr. Richard Phillips and Professor Graham,m making inquiries into the 12 samples submitted to you 7—Yes.”

“ 7,780. What time did you take in making these experiments 7—I think we wereabout 12 days.

“ 7,781. In examining the 12 specimens 7—Yes.

7,782. Did you sign the report 7—Yes.”

17