The sun., 1894-12-21
TIE DISCRIMINATING sUoAR DUTY.
Eaorts 20 Have ~ Removed Not Likely "a
ne Successful This Session.


wAsHiNGroN, Dec 2o.-The efforts Of the
Western cattle men 10 have the Tariff law
amended so ss 10 abolish the discriminating
sugar duty Of one-tenth Of q cent. per pound
against countries that pay an export bounty are
not meeting with great sucCcss Indeed, IL looks
very much rs IL their appeal in behalf OF the
great industry they represent would be un-
needed by Congress and the Administration.
Secretary Gresham has officially expressed
the opinion that the enactment of the discrimi-
Mating duty is a violation Of the treaty with
Germany, but this was as true in August last,
when the Tariff bill was sent 10 President Cleve-
land, as 1t is to-day, and the Administration
must therefore share with Congress the blame
for the legislation. The Republican policy Of
opposing the amendment of the Tariff law in
any particular, In order that the Democrats can
be held responsible for all tho sins Of that act,
was made known to-day TO George r. Davis, the
representative of the Western Boards of Trades
and cattle dealers. in a talk with Senator Aid
rich. the political manager on the Republican
side Of the Senate Chamber. Even the alcohol
schedule, which is SO worded as to work it's own
destruction, will be left IL Is, and the bill pre-
pared by Representative Tarsney Of the Ways
and Means Committee, which sets forth
specifically the several hundred errors, clerical
and otherwise. that were swallowed by the
House last summer while the Senate bill was
passed. without the dOttlnR OF an or the crossing
OF q t. will be left in the piReonhole unacted
upon when Congress adjourns on March 4.
Tho important question involved in the at
tempt TO have the discriminating duty removed
has aroused great interest here in and out OF
Congress. According to the recognized authori-
ties in legislative and department precedents,
the only way to settle the controversy between
the United States and Germany. in case Con-
gress refuses to reopen the tariff question in
order to remove the unsatisfactory discrimi-
tlate q new treaty. II is urged by
thnaa WIN ad thfa that inaamuCh ma
the present Tariff law has in effect nulli-
flied the treaty with Germany, It IL competent
for the treaty making power to negotiate anuth-
cr treaty, which shall in turn nullify the difer-
entail against German beet sugar. But IL Is not
certain that the Administration would care to
negotiate such a treaty, or that the Senate
would ratify IL II 1t should be negotiated. Nor
is 10 known whether the German Government
would consent to be n party to such q negOta-
tion. gentleman who is near to the German
Legation here says:
"The German Government has treaty with
the United States, which the United States,
with full notice. has chosen TO abrogate 10y a
statute. Why should the German Government
consent To another treaty designed to override
the existing law Of the United States, when that
treaty itself might in turn be nullifled by
other statute. The German Government has
difficulties of It's own in this matter. The agra
rlans OF the German empire are very formidR-
BILE factor in the politics of the empire and they
are well pleased with the exclusion OF American
neat products. There may be serious times
ahead for both countries"