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

considerable il is 900. Such is the value OF the loss
Now for the compensation.
hned by the treaty Of 1891 and calculated by the hec
,oli,ie (.esntyeo English Imperial ga'ons amounts
ifs &C. on white wines in casks.
5fs 64c. on red wines in casks.
Ifs, 26c on wines of all sorts in bnttles.
AS the statements of the French Custom house make
no distinction between the different species Of wines, in
order calculate the effects Of this reduction must
consult the statements of imports Of the United States,
Custom houses where those distinctions are noticed-
These statements prove importaons into the u States
from France Of
26 SEC hectolittcs of white wine in casks.
81 81 do. of red wines in casks.
1919 co. Of wine in bottles.
Calculating according TO the above distinctions, the
reduction OF duties obtained by France on The expor'a,
ton of duties obtained by France the expectation oil
is wines to the United States in 1899, was
lS0, l:}Gfs G4c. on white wines in clsAs
229 ,}!'5fS. 4c. on red wines IN CASKS
81, JOBS. J4c. Oh WING IN bottles.
| 515l30fs 22c. whole amount Of reduction.
Since the ratification Of the treaty OF 1881, an Act OF
Congress of July H. s34 reduces 10 the duties
stipulated in That treaty from anu after tie 80 OF March,
1881 Thus the difference between the duties before the
| treaty, and as arrangrt as
| l4t Sc. the hect'li,7e, OF white wine IN casks
Of Sic do red wine in casks
29f 55c do. wine in bottles.
Although these reductions have not been stipulated
in the treaty OF 1881 yet they implied consequence
Of it, The United States, in fact. engaged by the treaty
to maintain in case of alteration IN their tariff, the same
proportion between the reduced duties on French vines
and the general rates Of the tariff then in operation
The United States having diminished to onelalt the
duties wines other than those OF France, by the Act
Of Congress uf July II, 1852 they were bound by the
terms the treaty 10 make proportional reduction Of
the duties al.eady reduced by the treaty of io Con-
seaucny the whole difference between the duties ie-
ceivcd in lSi and those received now, are due 10 tie
treaty. -. -.. - ST..
-cilv fIa INN Of tlIS
rcdlctn we require the statements OF exports OF French
wines 10 The United States, and the statements OF The
custom house in America to imporiutIos OF those
wines. they have vet been received by the Depart
nrnt of Commerce but shall arrive satisfactory
aprroyimatio, by considering the expectation OF 1872,
rs a mean which those OF succeeding years must at
| least BE- equal.
According to this basis the annual reduction obtained
by direct effect or IMPLIED consequence OF the treaty
| would be
373.s73 IS Is cen,mes on white wines in casks,
5.5y ZIG IS. 16 do. Oh red WINES III casks,
22n.4SS s. 2, do. on wines in b,ltlcs.
| lIl3Gs7 % total annual reduction.
To recapalate, this treaty imposes tax OF $4,000
francs year. and effects duinuon Of 100000 tor
every wear after 1854 This comparison is decisive.
One objection indeed presents itself; the privilege in
favor Of our navigation, which we have abandoned
pcrpcuaI the reduction OF duties obtained is temporary
and we have thus agreed 10 perpetual burtlrn, which
also retard the advancement OF nav CATION. That
true it must also be agreed that the possibility OF this
advancement lies within yer, narrow limits. National
treatment was secured 10 every French vessel, with
out regard original place Of DEPARTURE whence it
came last, or its cargo; only secured " French
vessels coming from France OF It's COLONIES, laden with
the productions Of France It's colonies. !! the prlv
legcs OF French vessels in the ports of Louisiana had
been unlimited might have hoped that in virtue III
ttis privilege, il would have entered into competition
with foreign hlgs for the carrying trade, and that it
would thus have obtained in time large share in the
transportation from all parts Of the world to the Lous
| .IInfrn I.pin,r
transportation the vessels OF France could only in
to competition with those of the United States in the
trade between French ports and those OF Louisiana
1t could scarcely have been expected, that unde: cond
tons So uneg quail the shipping OF France could have
pecd with tina. Of the U. States Great britain, though
her vessels admitted the same footing with Aine
rcan d, The average amount Of navigation
between Louisiana and France ueing twenty thousand
tons and the French portion being three thousand it
nposs to estimate The loss occasioned by the
der of privilege, at more than the duty which pay
three thousand tons, and perhaps the advantage VI
the freight of seven thousand more. 10,
| No calculations founded on such ddtd will lead to al
amount equally advantageous France with that assured
BY the treaty and besides the chance Of increase This
relief from duties is indeed temporary but it will amount
IN see uial tie Interest of which is greater than tie
nual loss ch we would sustain forever, let that loss
be placed at rute as high as it reasonably may.
Is it Just moreover 10 estimate so exactly privilege
| granted indeed forever, but which many accidents
may lose; is it not us also 10 consider that
a
agreed on when wines have become oL jrcls Of daily
cInsunption the taste for them has been increased and
habits have been fixed, which the Federal Government
cannot suddenly interrupt: after having once favored
| them.
As far as we arc able to jud ,e Of the future from the
present. and to estimate the advantages which 10
suit from privilege Of navigation, by It's effects, al
ready expeencrd the comprn sation stipulated for the
abolition OF privilege in tile ports of Louisiana has
not appeared to US disadvantagcous to France.
| We have now to examine the clause relative to the
claims OF France and will begin by showing exactly
the classes Of claims 10 which ii refers Some Of them
are in virtue OF the law Of nations, the others from
tavrntiDns Of the municipal law. The first 10 be
| advanced automatically i'll the Of France, the
others have indeed received the official support Of
the rlrnch Legation, hut they remained private claims;
they be submitted 10 The authorities Of the
try and Judged according to lis laws but not sub
-cts for consideration il treaty. The Commission Of
1881 in its opinion founded examination Of The
rous claims which had been communicated it, has set
tied and applied these principles, and the distinction has
been observed in the treaty Of lc3l The third article
defines the claims winch the State should present and
| defend and for which compensation was spulalcd the
fifth article places the clals o! Americans, and Of French
men. respectively under the protection of the auhoii
ties Vi each country aud of It's laws: applicable 10 ci,i
well 10 Foreigners the Treaty cannot affect
| them IN any way
Now. is The compensation allowed by the Treaty suii-
Gent fn the claims 10 which ii applies? When the go
vcrnmen concluded the Treaty Of lo3l, it had right
think for the claims then Considered admissible did
not exceed that The claimants per haps, had not
at that time received notice in public
proper; however, within the four years which have since
elapsed few claims have been brought forward,
tina, the suciency Of the compensation puIacd can
| not br affected by them.
II no, the province Of your Committee examine
these claims in detail and apply to them according to
their nature the stipulaons OF the third and fifth Al-
Giles; for this purpose should have required time and
| power and numerous documents. We subscribe fully
to the principles laid down by the Commission of 1881
and we may add that i'll fact, their application which
rPnu and, Iuh
be conte<tedS reduced The admissible claims so far that
the million ind half Of francs will be enough to meet