New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-12-14
FRENCH DEPUTIES ON PORK.
prNAL DEBATE ONLIFTING THE
PROHIBITION.
EVERY FORM OF OBSTRUCTION EXHAUSTED

RINGERS OF RICmNoas-CosT OF NsPDc-
moS-poaT1oN CHANGED BY THE ACTION
of GERMANY AND IrALY-AMERcAN
INSPECTION RIDICULED.
,,,,s from debate in the Chamber of Deputies on the
hin, as amended by the Senate November 49, 1871
NJ Jules siegfried-Gentlemen, the bill which is
to YOU for its object 10 raise the general
~. os far as sailed pork meats are concerned, from
so francs, the present rate to % francs 'ne ioo o
rammes. , D,ry on ,s pp.Ncs
LATER on.
~ rsmenber that In its sitting Of the 2Sth May last
a, chamber had voted for duty OF 20 francs on the
reral tariff and Is francs on the minimum tarfh. l
Pr nr,v say two words as to the minimum tariff,
h does not enter into this question The Senate had
~ ccasion 10 pay any attention to 1t In fact 1t Is
a0.st,on which will arise later on. 1t is proper.
eesr.rtbs,ess I think, to say at once that when
uv vote the general tariff bill Ii will be prudent TO
,oee sated meats in the minimum tariff with lower
-. for the reason that II we wish to obtain from
ar Americans concessions in other artcles-their
.,,ies as you know very Might've shall have to
3, ohIe TO show them some advantage In return. II
o,,ed meats are only placed in the general tariff the
americans will submit TO duties, but will have
no ~S''NNSS'"'S
their tarif.
Now. from the point of view OF National In
sustry when have before us Nation Of more than
1900 900 inhabitants, which is composed Of numer-
ans and as a rule, rich consumers, it is very i'm
norant that we should be able to have our industrial
,oducts enter the United states under the best pos
mia conditions. I repeat that from this point Of
REV alone II is necessary that sailed meats should be
nut an the minimum tariff, well OH the general
1a But for the present ii is this last alone which is
under discussion
A TIuRTY-oNE PER CENT TARIFF ON CHEAP
FOOD.
You know gentlemen, that we had voted duty Of
On francs on saled pork meats this duty represented
already 25 per cent The Senate, however, found that
this was not sufficient and raised it TO IS francs. which
reuresens 81 per cent. We'll, gentlemen, ask you,
f. not that manesty excessive9 Is not duty Of 81
p.r cent imposed upon food product of the greatest
usefulness upon 4 product which is only consumed by
the working classes of town and country, and which
contains large amount of nutrtive qualities, abso
lpey excessiveY I think that this argument ought to
settle the question. That duties should be put
pensve products. consumed by the wealthy classes,
understand up to a certain point but indeed hope
that the Chamber will not commit such as to
put duties OF 81 per cent products which are con-
ssmed only by the working and the poor classes and
which are excellent food for the pnblic.
PROHIBITION HAS DONE NO GOOD TO FRENCH
FARMERS
Sill IL this duty of o5 francs would surely benefit
our agriculture, would consent to It, But II we cast
glance over the statistics, what do we see? The
decree Of prohibition published In 1881. Has 1t
done any extraordinary amount OF good to agriculture?
The number Of head of hogs is almost the to-day
as before 1881. From this point of view there has
been, then, no improvement. As to prices, has the
prohibition caused them to rise7 Not at all; the
ms toad NJ haV
prohibition has then had for consequence neither
great development OF our breeding industry nor an
increase in prices
The truth Is that the prohibition has had no other
result than that of depriving working people OF
an excellent food which has not been replaced by
national meats, which are OF superior quality un'
coubtedy, but too expensive.
The question Is now whether the duty Of 20 francs
per 100 kilogrammes which you voted lately Is not
Sufficient. At the same time that the Chamber,
resolved to fully protect agriculture, voted IT, IL
fixed the duty living hogs at francs, and on meat
Of slaughtered animals at IL francs
II the Chamber considered that these duties which
represent per cent and per cent Of the value of
the products sufficient to protect the breeding
of the hog how It, logically, now vote duty OF
81 per cent the same meats, simply because they
ara salted? The duty of 20 francs, which we had
previously voted. represents already an additional
protection of francs per 100 kogrammes 1t
seems TO me that this protection is amply sufficient ;
and really do not understand why the Senate raised
the rate to 90 francs. hope then, that the Chamber
recognizing that there is interest positively demo-
cratic involved that of our working population, which
Is so much in need o; being able to find cheap food
will maintain its former vote and will not consent
to the increase asked for
However. in order to make a compromise, we have
Thought that distinction might be made according to
the Quality that the ham might be put on one sde
as having higher value and not In special manner
the working classes and ordinary Dacon'
and the shoulders, which are sold more cheapiy,
on the other side. Consequently, we have handed In
an amendment which, while accepting The duty OF 20
francs OH hams the price of which is about l2O francs
for the 100 kilogrammes, reduces to 20 francs the
duty on bacon and shoulders, the value OF which Is
about 40 francs That would still make duty OF
20 per cent on hams and Of % per cent on bacon'
seems TO me that under these conditions the interests
Of our breeding industry will be absolutely guaranteed
and hope that the Chamber will accept the amend
ment which my colleague and friend, Mr.. Faure and
have handed in.
NO CONVENTIONAL TARIFF FOR AMERICA.
Mr.. Henry Boucher Reporter)- Gentlemen. Mr..
siegred reminded that the Senate had suppressed
the duty which the Chamber had voted in the min
mum tariff on sailed meats. and has asked us TO take
at once position in opposition to the vote OF the
Upper House.
will reply to honorable colleague that such
perhaps not our role and that this is certainly not
tie hour TO so act This is not the hour. for there
no question here Of the minimum tariff the conven-
tonal tariff being in force until February. AS you
well know the duty of $50 francs. inscribed in the
general tariff was reduced 10 $50 francs by treaties
signed in 1881 with Portugal and Italy. Consequently
this duty will necessarily continue to be applied up
the expiration of the treaties Of commerce. during
all the period which the law discussing is more
especially meant to cover. We are not called upon,
then, to discuss ii for the present. The question TO
determine is what duties shall be imposed upon the
American importations. to which the conventional
tariff does not in any way apply For these the gen
eral tariff alone / repeat. is under discussion
THEORETICAL PROHIBITION - PRETENDED