The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-12-06
GERMANY NOT CoNTENT.
May Strike Other Blows u United
States Products.


WASHINGTON, Dec. 5.-Germany has
taken the initial step towards curtaiing
the importation of another American prod
uct in the proposition now before the
Bundezrath to enormously increase the
duty on cotton seed oil. The proposition
is TO increase the present duty, which is
81 to $3.50. equivalent to duty of go per
cent, and as the proposition is supported
by the combined agrarian and protectionist
industrial parties, there can be little doubt
that it will succeed. The subject is treated
at length in a report to the State Depart
ment by United States Consul Merritt at
Bremen. He says that in future cotton
seed oil and oil nuts and seeds will pay
high duty. The raising of the duty is sup
ported by the report that its use for food
purposes rose from $4,000 pounds in
1885, to over 10000 pounds In 1893. BY
means of simple processes of refining. cot
ton seed oil can be turned into sweet oil
and is used TO a great extent in the man.
ufacture of artificial butter and also for
the conservation of fish. "All this means
In good German" says the consul, that
while pretending to strike at cotton seed
oil, it means TO strike oleomargarine. IL
officially drugged SO as 10 be unfit for
transformation into food the oil will be ad-
mitted at much lower rate. The result
will be a considerable rise i'm the price of
the material for the manufacture or oleo-
margarine, for, unlike our American lnall-s
ufac1urers the Germans have not succeed
ed in producing the oil from the seed fit
for food purposes. The consul marks the
progress of this traffic war in the following
significant paragraph: Il had hoped 10 be
able to report that there was a sincere de-
sire on the part of the German people to
join the people Of the United States in a
mutual effort for the extension of the COM
merce of both countries, but the foregoing.
khnr xrfth hn inst
American beef would indicate to a certain
extent a different attitude in this coun-
try toward the enlargement of sales OF
1t is not Impossible that the German gov
ernment may also take some action hostile
to our cotton interests. In a report to the
about way from Vienna, United States
Consul-general Max Judd states that the
German government has recently sent
commission to study the. cultivation and
manufacture of cotton in the United States.
1t is to inquire into: First, methods OF cul-
tivation and implements used therefor;
second. improvements in machinery for
preparing cotton for markets: third, differ
ence of conditions and cost Of production
the quality of cotton before and after the
war; fifth, the success Of the cotton seed
oil industry and the cost of the produc-
ton of cotton and the advantages pos
sessed by the United States over England.
New England and Germany in the manu-
facture of cotton. The prime object in
view, according to the official report, is to
determine whether the cotton produced in
the United States meets the needs ofs the
German manufacturer or whether IL would
be better to buy all or part of the raw
cotton used in Germany elsewhere.
Gresham on the German Protest.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5.-The President to-
day sent to Congress the statement of the
German contention in reference to the dis
elimination against the importation in the
Af fo ,foh
reference was made in his annual message
to Congress. The statement is in form Of
a letter from Secretary Gresham to the
President. In substance this is recital
of the German protest made Aug. % last
against the additional duty of one-tenth Of
a cent per pound imposed by the Wilson
act on sugars imported from bounty-paying
countries. The Secretary refers with some
length to the negotiations between this
country and Great Britain, about 1Sil, rela-
tive to rice Importation. in which the United
States then assumed position, finally con-
ceded by Great Britain to be correct, very
similar that now taken by Germany in
the case of sugar. and in fact the discrim-
ination in the present instance is even
more pointedly at variance with
the treaty stipulations. The Secre-
on exported products cannot be considered
in the light of discrimination: certainly
not more than the imposition of pro-
tective or practically prohi5itive duty on
the importation of an article. The two
measures are the same in principle; the
question as to which shall be adopted is
matter of domestic policy. Each is in
tended 10 create a national advantage In
production or manufacture. and as between
the two the bounty is more favorable 70
the inhabitants of foreign countries since
il tends TO enable them to get cheaper ar
ticles at the expense OF the bounty paying
government. In conclusion the Secretary
says that the additional duty levied on
bounty-paying sugar by the act of 1894 Is a
discrimination. that ii Is an attempt 10
offset domestic favor or encouragement
to a certain industry by the very means
forbidden by the treaty. He assumes how
ever. that the German government does
not claim that the treaty (made with Prus.
sia in 1929 affords any just ground foi
protest against additional duties on sugar.
not shown 10 be the produce or manufac-