ion and literature produce, and all the comforts and advantages which follow a dense society and a diligent attention to that important branch of agriculture, so actively pursued in the sunny south. Hopewell, Tensas Parish, La. ART. VI.-SUGAR. Philadelphia, Feb. 5th, '49. TO PROF. J. D. B. DE Bow: Dear Sir-Herewith, I send you for publication in your Review, a copy of a letter, dated 1st August, 1848, addressed to me by N. Rillieux, esq., of your city, together with a translation of a pamphlet by Mr. Degrand of Paris, published in 1845. I also inclose the successive articles of a newspaper controversy, extracted from the New Orleans Picayune, and handed to me by Mr. Rillieux; leaving it, however, entirely to your own judgment and pleasure, whether or not they should be reprinted. The circular to which Mr. R. refers, and which gave rise to said controversy, is contained in your Review for March, 1848. It was, I believe, the wish of Mr. Rillieux, that I should embody the papers accompanying his letter in a second edition of my reports, now in press; but they have appeared to me too controversial to justify their insertion, or more than a reference to them, in a document printed by order of the United States Senate. I have, therefore, concluded to send them to your Journal; in which they may find an appropriate place, as well as any criticisms they may call forth. Of Mr. Degrand's pamphlet, I have elsewhere, though less explicitly, given my opinion, that it is the production, rather of an interested inventor, than of an impartial and scientific engineer. It will, however, be interesting to many of your readers; some one of whom may find time to point out the errors it contains. For my own part, I must forbear to pay attention to the sugar industry, that I may prosecute investigations more purely scientific with undivided and constant devotion. Very respectfully, R. S. M'CULLOH, ESQ. your obd't serv't, Philadelphia, August 1st., 1848. DEAR SIR-I have learned that another edition of your report upon Cane Sugar is to be published, under your direction, by order of Congress. There are some inaccuracies in that report to which I beg leave to call your attention, so that they may, if you see fit, be corrected in the forthcoming reprint. A brief history of the progress of boiling sugar by vacuo in France, may serve to point out some of the errors referred to in their proper order. In 1821, or '2, the first vacuum pan was set up in France. It was heated by the direct application of fire, and the vacuum was maintained by an air pump worked by horse power. It was a complete failure. In 1831, Roth introduced his first vacuum pan with large condenser. After some years it was found necessary to apply thereto an air pump worked by a small steam engine. Finally, Roth's large condenser was dispensed with, and his apparatus became a common Howard pan, using high pressure steam. Since that time, all the vacuum pans in France have been heated by steam of high pressure, instead of low steam as used in England. Until recently, the French pans were of small size, mak ing frequent small strikes at intervals of twenty or thirty minutes. In 1844, they began to use pans of larger size, and suitable for graining the sugar in the pan, but they still adhere to the injurious practice of using high steam. I come now to my apparatus for making sugar, the invention of which I am prepared to trace back to January or February, 1832, by the testimony of gentlemen of the highest standing in Louisiana. In 1834, a part of my invention was described to Derosne and other persons in France; and subsequently, my idea of boiling one vacuum pan by the vapor from another, was conveyed to him by persons who can be traced. [See Note.] In 1843, Derosne made a trial of the last idea in such a defective manner as to show plainly that he did not comprehend it. Mr. Dumas, in the sixth volume of his Chemistry, gives a drawing of that apparatus tried by Derosne, which you have copied in your report and stated to be the same you saw in operation in Cuba, on the estate of Don Villa Urutia, and on the Amistad estate near Guines, owned by the widow Ayesterau and her sons. I have recently seen all the apparatus set up by Derosne in the island of Cuba, except that of Don Contero; and none of them use the steam of one pan to boil another. I afterward saw Don Contero, in Havana, and he informed me it was not so used in his apparatus. Don Ayesterau told me that, when you visited their plantation, he had only one vacuum pan with a Degrand condenser. The next year, he bought a second pan, a plain Howard pan, using a pumping engine and injection. On that estate, they now have one vacuum pan with Degrand condenser and pumping engine, to boil to syrup of 28°, one plain Howard pan and pumping engine to make the strike; both pans being supplied with high pressure steam direct from the boilers.* and Don Ayesterau told me he wished to use tigers, but that he could not granulate in his pan, and must, therefore, procure either a large English pan or one of mine. At Don Villa Urutia's, they have two Degrand pans; one for syrup, and one for the strike. At Don Diego's, two open steam pans for syrup, and one Degrand pan for the strike. At Don Arieta's, two open steam pans and one Degrand pan, to make the syrup, and one Degrand pan for the strike. The whole of these pans are heated by high pressure steam direct from the boiler. At Don Soulieta's, the last and largest, and the most improved apparatus set up by Derosne in Cuba, there are two open steam pans and two Degrand pans, to make the syrup, and one Degrand pan for the strike, a pumping engine of the size formerly made by Derosne for each of the two first pans, and one of larger size with condenser and injection for the strike pan. There is also a Degrand condenser, for condensing the steam of the two grinding engines. The whole five pans are supplied with high pressure steam direct from the boilers. The quality of the syrup made on all these estates by the Degrand apparatus (as made by Derosne), is precisely the same as that made by the open steam pans. The great defects of this system (as made by Derosne) are the use of high pressure steam and of vacuum pans of too small size. As the only notice of that apparatus is the one in Dumas's Chemistry, and as Derosne has never applied the same idea to any of the apparatus made by him since, it is certain that he did not succeed at all. N. R. I hand you, herewith, a publication by Degrand, in which he asserts and proves that Derosne, so far from improving the apparatus invented by him, has actually injured it by his modifications. Derosne also attempted to deprive Degrand of the credit of his inven tion, but the Royal Court of Paris recognized his rights, declared him to be the only and true inventor, and ordered Derosne, under a heavy penalty, to take off his own name as inventor from all the apparatus he had made and substitute "Degrand inventor," in large letters. In justice to the inventor, I suggest that you record this fact in your report. I also hand you, herewith, a statement in tabular form, showing the comparative results of different methods of making sugar in Louisiana. It is difficult to get precise data, because the planters are averse to making their operations known. I was, therefore, in some cases, compelled to get my information from persons employed on the plantations. The general correctness of the statements may be inferred from the fact, that only two of the planters have made any objection thereto. One, Mr. Valcour Aime, and his engineer, objected to the statements in the report, and I refer you to a newspaper correspondence from which you may judge of the merits of the case. The other, Mr. Osgood, briefly denies in general terms the correctness of the statement respecting his crop. He was requested to give, the data to enable me to correct the table, and refused to do so. I have, therefore, taken some pains to inform myself about the matter. I have obtained from persons on his plantation the following statement of his crop: Sugar made Fuel consumed: 66 wood 650,000 lbs. "begassa, from year before, equivalent to I could not ascertain whether the quantity of sugar given was the total product of first and second sugar, or first sugar only. I believe it was the whole crop; in which case there would be about 470,000 lbs, of first sugar and 180,000 lbs. of second sugar; which gives a consumption of 4.78 cords of wood per hogshead of first sugar, instead of 4 cords, as given in the circular. If the weight of first sugar was 650,000 lbs., then the consumption of fuel was 3.46 cords of wood per hogshead of 1,000 lbs. As to the price of his sugar, I stated that his molasses sugar sold for 3 cents; this was a mistake; it was the molasses sugar of his neighbor, Mr. Johnson (sold by same merchant), which sold for that price. He succeeded in selling about one-half of his crop in New Orleans, at 64; but to keep it at that price, he was compelled to send the balance to Mobile, where it was sold at the same rate; thus netting Mr. Osgood, at New Orleans, about 50-say an average price of 510 for the whole crop as given in the circular. N. RILLIEUX. NOTE. In December, 1831, or January, 1832, I visited the estate of T. A. Morgan, Esq.. in Louisiana, and proposed to build one of my apparatus for that gentleman. He had made up his mind to have a common vacuum pan for his next crop, and declined my offer. In January, same year, I was in treaty with Mr. W. Freret for the same purpose, and with the same result. Finding that the planters were not yet prepared to adopt such an improved apparatus, I set up at my own expense, in November, 1832, on the plantation of Mr. Cucullu, some open steam pans, to show to the planters that steam could be used for evaporating cane juice. I was compelled to take it down before trial, because it happened to be in the way-and it was deemed absurd to believe that the cane juice of Louisiana could be boiled by steam. In the beginning of 1834, I was in treaty with another planter of Louisiana, who brought his overseer to my office to see the sketch of my apparatus, since patented. This overseer soon after went to France, and there saw Mr. Cail (afterward of the firm Derosne & Cail), to whom he explained what he could recollect of the apparatus I had shown him. He did not believe it to be my invention, and supposed that it was from Paris, and that Cail knew all about it, being engaged in making sugar machinery. Cail told him it was new, an excellent idea, and that he had a vacuum pan already made to which he would apply it, and desired him to call in six weeks and he should see it carried out. The pan, with the improvements, was sent to the National Fair of Paris, in the beginning of July, where it was seen by Degrand, who had invented and patented the same thing in 1833. He entered suit against Derosne for infringement of patent, but the matter was settled by compromise, in which it was agreed that Derosne should be the assignee and only builder of the patent apparatus for the north of France and the colonies, with the condition that he should pay to Degrand a fixed sum as patent charge for every apparatus he made. In 1835, I set up one of my complete apparatus at the expense of myself and others concerned with me, on Z. Ranson's estate, Parish St. Charles, La., which was taken down without trial and before completion, because of the death of one of the persons associated with me in the experiment. The sugar maker engaged to operate with this apparatus, described to Derosne and his other friends, in France, my idea of boiling one pan by another; and in 1843, Derosne made a trial of that idea in such a way as to give positive proof that he did not understand it.* N. R. ART. VII.-TRUE SECRET OF AMERICAN WINE MAKING. HAVING formerly, at some length, treated, in your valued periodical, on vine culture, I offer you now a few remarks on the true secret of successful wine making in our country, and especially in southern vineyards. And, in so doing, I shall have reference to certain remarks of Mr. N. Longworth, of Cincinnati, Ohio, in a letter of his, in Burke's Patent Office Report of 1847. Mr. L. combats the opinion of the American Institute, that the grape is a certain crop, and that the Scuppernong is a superior grape for either the table or wine. He further remarks, that Mr. Adlum, and others, put too much sugar in wine made with the addition of that ingredient only. That I have not misrepresented Mr. L's position any one may satisfy himself, I think, by reading his letter. That Mr. Longworth deserves great credit for his enterprising spirit, in turning some of the banks of the Ohio river, like those of the Rhine and other European rivers, into vineyards, and for making more wine, annually, than any vintner in our Union (three hundred barrels in one year; my product, as next highest, being about fifty barrels, only), would appear from his letter, and from others in the Patent Office Report of 1845. But so much the more dangerous any erroneous opinions of his, tending to discourage the vineyard enterprise, • The remaining papers, referred to by Professor M'Culloh, will appear in the next number of the Review-ED. 375 coming from so high an authority.. For, if true that the grape is an uncertain crop (in our southern country, particularly), and successful one year in four, only, and that the Scuppernong, the greatest of grapes for yield, and reputed excellency every way, is inferior for fruit and wine, and that Mr. Guignard's pound of sugar per gallon is too much, notwithstanding he lost the greater part of his wine by turning sour, then, I say, who, in the South in particular, would undertake the vineyard business? But suppose a full crop of grapes, every year, is expected, or two thousand gallons per acre, as the Scuppernong is capable of yielding, and, through an uncertain process of making, most of the wine is spoiled, as was Mr. Guignard's, through, I venture to say, his too small quantity of sugar-who would think it desirable to make a large crop of grapes? And whatever may be said of making a very small quantity of wine, dry or wet, by shriveled or half dried grapes, as I have done, I am bold to assert that the position, that an American vineyard can ever be made profitable, without any safe-keeping, enriching ingredient whatever, added to the grape juice, is altogether chimerical, or Utopian. Efforts to make good wines as a crop, in the teeth of European and other experience of ages, will issue in utter failure. Suppose, for a moment, that European vintners of Port, Madeira, and Malmsey wines, should cease now from what they have been doing for ages, viz., adding one-third spirits to their wine, how long would their wine reputation and business last? How soon would the highly reputed medicinal, and other superior qualities of these wines, cease to draw annual millions from our country. Mr. Longworth himself advises southern vintners to add one-third brandy, or spirits, to their vine juice, if designing a brandied wine. But how much sugar, I emphatically ask, is equivalent thereto, if a sugared, or sweet wine is designed? I say, from chemical knowledge and experience, three pounds per gallon, at least. Where, then, is the consistency of saying, that Mr. Adlum and others put too much sugar in their wines? And no mean judges of foreign, as well as American wines, in our State capital, Raleigh, consider my Scuppernong Hock-made with three pounds of doubly refined sugar, as the only enriching, safe-keeping ingredient-the best wine anywhere found in market. It commands four dollars per gallon, readily. My Scuppernong Champaign, made with a fourth spirits, and a pound of sugar per gallon, sells at two dollars. Common brandied Scuppernong brings one dollar per gallon, or that made with about one-third spirits, only, as Mr. L. recommends. So that the Scuppernong grape is capable of making wines of all grades of excellence. And that it is the very best of grapes would appear from this, if no other circumstance, that of the many guests visiting my establishment, paying entrance fee, and buying grapes to carry away, the Scuppernong is preferred to all others by ninety-nine out of a hundred; though I have about two hundred varieties of grapes, and among these the most approved by Mr. L. himself; as the Catawba, Herbemonts, Madeira, &c., &c. Indeed, Mr. L. reasons as erroneously in identifying the Scuppernong with the Muscadine, as if one should deny the famed excellence of a certain peach, because of its being of the same species A |