, 1883-05-05
TBEaxERrcAy HOG IN GERMANY.

TIE San Francisco Call recently ssys
tha. articles in German newspaper have
demonstrated the fac. that the American
hog is not popular in that country. There
is. IL fact, q decided feeling In favor OF
the native hog. Whether this feeling Is
n. expression OF patriotism OF Is Of more
sord,d nature, does not much matter. 1t
exists. aud IN obedience to 1t the importa-
rira 1t American pork Is forbidden IN
G.ruzny Tne Americsn Minister IN
Germany, who is keenls A.ye TO American
interests, informed bis government on
What ground the importation OF American
pork was prohibited. He had ascertained
ths, the ground on which the prohibition
vas based was mainly an imaginary one.
The Germans contended that American
pork was diseased. Il is eontended, on
the other hand, that American pork Is as
free from disease as the pork Of any other
eo,ntry. American Consuls in varisus
Europesn countries have Investigated the
charge made against American pork and
find It false. The February volume OF
Consular reports contains paper from
Consul Wilson al Nantes, in which the
European wer upon American pork Is re-
viewed "The only danger" he says
from trichina IN any pork arises from the
barbarous practice Of eating 1t rs~.
This view Of the case is fortified by an ex-
trac, from circular issued by the French
Minister of Commerce and Agriculture,
issued four days before the French decree
Of prohibition Was issued. The American
Minister in Germany gathered together
similar arguments to show the injustice Of
prohibiting the importation Of American
pork A German newspaper, however,
which is apparently strongly pr.iudiced
in favor OF the German hog, makes this
correspondence the basis of an s,tack up
on Minister Sargent. 1t compares the at
titude Of the American government In
trying to force :he American hog on Ger
man stomachs to that of England in fore
ing opium upon the Chinese. The Ger
man anti American-hog journal seems to
have overlooked the important difference
In the two cases 1t places in parallel. The
qualities Of opium are not IN doubt.
There has never been any question wheth-
er or not opium produced the effects at
sributed to it. But there is no evidence
that American pork is injurious in any
country where meat is cooked before it is
eaten. The difference between the two
cases is therefore radical 1t is the differ,
-.nce between White and black or any
other opposItes Minister Sargent is Be-
verely censured for advocating what il
termed a policy Of retalia.ion-of dis.
nnguishing against certain importations
from Germany unul such time as Ger
many revIses its American pork policy.
There seems some doubt whether Mr..
Sargent has recommended such policy
As is represented, but if he has, ne has
| simply f.llowed in the footsteps Of the Ger
| man government. Ii American products,
harmless in themselves, and only injurious
when improperly used, are excluded from
/ Germany, why should not such Ger nan
products as the American people can well
do withou ut be excluded from the United
Statesl One would suppose the European
stomac,, abnormally delicate from the agi-
tation caused by American pork. To dis
abuse the American mind of any such in
ference, Consul Wilson collects some sta
tistics showing the kind of food consumed
IN Paris. Minister Sargent did not for
ward any statistics Of this nature, nor is
it necessary t, show that in the absence
f American pork the Germans resort to
varieties Of animal flesh Not generally re-
sarded as Fl, for food The fact, which
IS pretty clearly made cut, is that Ameri-
can pork is as free from disease as German
pork, but is excluded because the pric,.
tt which it is sold in Germany is below
the price of German pork. This being
the cas.., the Germans have clear right
"a place All import tax on American pork,
or to prohibit its Importation outright,
bat it should not complain, as the North
German Gasstte does, when a like policy
is inaugurs'ed by the American govern
ment.