Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-11-17

considerable is 600 Such is the value Of the loss
Now Tor the compensation.
The reduction of the duty on the wines of France
obtained by the of 1881 calculated by the hec
'o're' (toe"tyco Engiish inperiat galions, amounts
ia &c. on white wines in casks
DIS Gle. on red wines in casks
IFS. 26c wines of all sorts in bottles
As the statements of the French Custom .house make
no distinction between the different spcccs of wines i'm
order to calculate the effects OF this reduction we
consult The statements OF imports of the United States
Custom houses, where those distinctions are noticed -
These statements prove hnportatons the IT, States
26st6 hectoitrcs of white wine in casks
oi,3Il do of red wines in casks
| 500 do. of wine in bottles
Calculating according the above distinctions the
reduction of duties obtained by France on tho ernor,,
lon OF duties obtained by France the expectation of
rs wines TO the United States in 1892 was
lS9, i3Os Oic. on white wines in casks
| 2s0,39iis. DC. ON red wines in casks
S6,OS9is sic. on wine ia bottles
5,ljOis pc. whole amount of reduction.
since inc ratification of the treaty of 1891 an Act Of
congress ot July Ia 1884 reduces half the duties
stipulated in that treaty from aud after the 3d OF March
1881 Thus the differences duties before the
treaty, and as now arranged is
~ &C the hectolitrc, OF he wine in casks.
o 49,, cue 90 red wine in casks.
Although these reductions have not been s,;nn,,,oa
IN the treaty of 1881 they are an
OF IT, Inc United States in fact engaged by the treaty
10 hain'a In case of alteration in their tariff the same
proportion between the reduced duties on French wines
and The general rates of the tariff then in operation
C-ln TIM
dulles on wines other than those of France bv Tho A,
OF Congress of July ID 1852 they were bound A., ,h
Terms OF lhs treaty to make proportional reduction of
the duties already reduced by the treaty of 1881 Con-
sequently, the whole difference between the duties re-
cevcd IN 1881, and those received now are due TO the
treaty ~ ''e
In order to estimate ex?cy the importance of this
rednction we require the statements xports of French
wines TO the United States and the statements ~ ,I
cusiom-house in America us TO importations of tboss
wines; they have yet been received by the Depari
eht oi Commerce, but we shall arrive at satisfactory
| d.rin
as mean TO which those OF succeeding years must al
least be equal.
According TO this basis the annual reduction obtained
world be '
49, S3 IS 28 confines on white wines in casks,
| o9oJ2O Is 40 do. on red wines in casks
2294oS IS % do. wines in bottles
! l,ll3GS7 90 total annual reduction
TO recapituate this treaty imposes tax of o. OO0
francs year, and effects dimnution of 100 OO0 for
every year after 1884. This comparison is drcisivs
One objection indeed presents itself the privilege in
favor OF our navigation, which have abandoned Was
perpetual The reduction of duties obtained temporary
and we have thus agreed to perpetual burthen which
also retards the advancement OF navigation That's
true but must also be agreed that the possibility of this
advancement lies within very narrow limits National
treatment was not secured 10 every Fench vessel with.
out regard To its original place OF departure or whence
came last or ITS cargo IT only secured to French
vessels coming from France its colonies laden with
the productions OF France its colonies If the priv
ieges OF French vessels in the ports of Louisiana had
peen unlimited, we might have hoped that in virtue of
this privilege, it world have entered into comne,iton
with foreign flags for the carrying trade and thal il
would thus have obtained in time large share i'm The
transportation from all parts OF the world TO the Louisi
ana ports But the privilege being limited TO direct
sporlation the vessels Of France only enter in
10 eompeton with those of the United States in Tho
trade between French ports and those of Louisiana
1t could scarcely have been expected that under condi
IONS so unequal hc shipping oil France could have COM
peted with that of the u. States Great Britain thonh
her vessels are admitted the same footing with A1s
can does no more The average amount OF navigation
Ibetween Louisiana and France being twenty tho1snnd
tons, ana the French portion being three thousand II 10
impossible to estimate The loss accustomed by the sren
der oil our privilege at more than the duty which we nav
on three thousand TONS and perhaps the advanag. ~
the freight OF seven thousand more
No calculations founded on such daa will lead TO an
amount equally advantageous 10 France with that assured
by the treaty and besides the chance of increase Thi
relief from duties is indeed temporary but it will amour,
In ten TO about ten millions francs that i tn ca,
to capital the interest of which is greater than the az
huaI ross winch we would sustain forever let that loss
| DC placed at rate as high as it reasonably may
lis IT just moreover 10 estimate so exactly urvileaa
granted indeed forever, but which many accidents
may cause us to lose: Is IL not just also consider that
REDUCTION OF duties must continue after the period
agreed on, when wines have become objects of daily
consumption the taste for them has been increased and
habits have been fixed which the Federal Governncnt
cannot suddenly interrupt, after having once favored
them. ~
As far able 10 Judge Of the future from, ,,
present and to estimate the Advantages which are 10 re-
suit from privilege of navigation by its fleets ns al
ready experienced, the compensation stipulated for The
abolition OF our privilege in the ports of Louisiana has
not appeared to us advantageous 10 France
We have now TO examine the clause relative IN Tho
OF fIhhce, ana we VIII begin by showing
the classes OF claims to which il refers. Some of them
arc IN virtue of the law OF nalions others from con-
Inventions OF the municipal law The first were ia he
advanced automatically in tie name of France lie
others may have indeed received the official snno,,t NJ
the french Legation but they remained private caius
tey were To be submitted 10 the authorities of the conn
try and Judged according to its laws but were not sub
Jrcts Tor consideration in treaty The Commission of
1901, IN It's opinion, founded of the va
Tious claims which had been communicated it, has set
tied and applied these principles and the distinction has
oeen observed III the treaty Of 1881 The third article
defines the claims Which the State should present and
defend and Tor which compensation was spu lated iLe
nth article places the claims of Americans and
men, respectively under The protection of the anbo,
Ties of each country and of IFS laws applicable TO CHI;
zens as well as TO foreigners; the Treaty cannot affect
them in any way.
Now, the compensation allowed by the Treaty sniff
clent toi the clams to which applies? When The 10
veInmentcnnelnded the Treaty oil 1881 1T had gbt 10
think so, for the claims then considered admissible did
not exceed that The claimants perhaps had moi
at That time received notice in a public az was
proper however, within the four years which have since
elapsed, so few claims have been brought forward
tha the suthciehcy Of the compensation stipulated can
not be affected by them
u was not The province Of your Committee to examine
these Claims IN detail, and 10 apply them accordDg 10
their nature, the spulations of the third and 6Gb AMI
clesj tor this purpose Should have required time and
power, and numerous documents. We subscribe f,lv
10 lhe principles laid down by the Commission Of Is3f
and we may add that in fact their application which
we were not bound TO regulate and which will doubtless
DC contested reduced the admissible claims far tia
The million and half Of francs will be enough 10 mee
them. However dat may be, and whether this be great
err less than the whole amount Of claims Admitted lie
establishment Of Commission for EXAMINING and dcc
ding these claims without a. H., kaf..