The New York herald., 1870-03-06
The Russia Hemp Dificulty-Our Treaty
Stipulaii0ns.

stipuIatiOns.
Through our special correspondence from
Washington few days since the public have
learned that the Russian government has made
formal complaint to our government of the
infraction Of the treaty between the two coun-
tries ratified May IL, 1888. This treaty in
substance provides that mo other or higher
duties shall be imposed on the importatons
into the United States of any article the pro-
duction or manufacture Of Russia than are or
shall be payable on the like articles being the
country"
Notwithstanding this Congress, in the Tariff
act passed August 5, 1861, imposed duty of
forty dollars per ton on manufactured Russia
hemp, while by the same act Manila and other
hemps of India were admitted to importation
upon the payment of twenty-five dollars per
ton. That this action on the part of Congress
was a violation Of the treaty does not seem to
admit of doubt. Whether the act of 1861,
imposing discriminating duty on Russia
hemp, was passed in momentary forgetfulness
by Congress of the treaty stipulations with
Russia, or with desire to impose aprohibitory
duty on Russia hemp for the protection Of pro-
ducers Of Kentucky hemp, matters bu. little,
now that the Russian government has deemed
it it's duty to formally demand of our govern
ment compliance with its treaty obligations.
1t is said that the violation Of the treaty has
been substantially conceded by both the
Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of
State, and the President in his recent message
called the attention of Congress to the subject
in the following language :-':Your attention is
respectfully called to the law regulating the tariff
on Russia hemp, and to the question whether
to fix the charges on Russia hemp higher
than they are fixed on Manila is not viola
tion Of our treaty with Russia, placing her
the most favored nations" The Committee of
Ways and Means, in the Tariff bill reported by
them, propose to change the law by leaving
out the word Russia" and calling Manila
substitute for hemp, leaving the rates of duty
upon each as they were under the act of 1861.
After levying duties upon Manila hemp as a
hemp for thirty years, Congress now proposes
to call it q substitute for a hemp" in the face
of the fact that it has been settled by judicial
decision in our own courts, in the case of
Fielder vs.. Curtis e Black, S. G. R., 4SD,
that Manila hemp is known in trade and
commerce as unmanufactured hemp, and isused
for the same purposes, viz, the manufacture
Of rope and cordage. The testimony Of large
number of merchants and manufacturers en-
gagged in trade in the various parts Of the
United States has been taken, who import,
purchase and use both Manila and Russia
hemps, and they all agree in confirming
the correctness of the decision of the court.
This discrimination against Russia hemp
has seriously affected the commerce between
this country and Russia, which is shown by
the almost total cessation Of importa tions of
Russia hemp, while the importations Of
Manila hemp have largely increased. Our
government cannot afford to lose its reputa-
ton for honesty and fair dealing, and the good
faith which must be observed by all govern