Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-06
GERMANY's PROTEST.
III VIII Have No Effect On Thts
ernment's Action

Sht ACTION.
me protest of the German government
s' the collection of countervaiIng
uhuer the provision of the Dingley
VIII nave no effect The contention
that duty added by this country In cow
p'o'e ioi export bounties paid by a for
eisn country is in violation of the MOS,
favored nation clause In orr treaty Sc -,
teriy untenable. The counteryailinp duties
apply to all imports from anv nation an
wnlcn export bounties are paid No dis
crlmlnatlon is involved and it cannot h.
coh.ehoed that nation not paving an
export bounty is especially favored nv NOT
raniils lrhs 10 pay the countervailing duties
Ihese additional duties are not now being
actually collected for the reason that tbev
are conditional upon the amount of exnort
bounty allowed by the countries from
wien WHEN the imports come. But all goods
subject to these additional duties which
nave been imported since the bill went i'm
TO effect are released subject to navmen,
hereafter The Treasury Department is
now engaged in securing information as
10 the rates of export bounty, the condi-
ton under which it is paid. etc. and as
soon as this Information is had the conn
terVa1iing duties will be collected on ALI
Imports imp subject TO them since the Dingley
law went into effect.
Inc negotiations authorized under the
Dlngley act for reciprocal allowances and
reciprocity treaties will be conducted by
IL. w
ever, that some little time may elapse he
lore any agreements are entered into 1t
is probable that the first thing done under
this authority will be with relation to wine
ETC., anectinS France, in return for con-
cesSions which that government will nm
doubtedly make in order to secure The ad-
Vantages which the act permits to be ex-
tended to such imports.
The Formal Protest.
The German government has again en-
tered formal protest against the applica-
ton to German sugar of section of the new
tariff act, by which such sugar would be
taxed with higher duty than that from
other countries.
1t is not denied, however. that the Ger
man sugar clearly comes within the
provision of section by reason of the pay-
ment of an export bounty, but the conten-
tfon is made that the additional duty inn
posed is in effect discriminate against
German sugar, which is Incompatible both
with the most favored nation rights that
are secured to German productions by the
treaties now in force, and also with the
provisions or the Saratoga agreement of
August y, 1891. As to the first contention
the German charge d'affaires, NJ Won
Reichenau, In mis- note to the Secretary
or state, appears to revive the position
taken IN June, 1885, with respect to the du-
ties leviable upon bountied sugars The
matter was then considered in connection
with the discriminating tariff provisions
OF August q, 1894. in relation to salt du-
ties by the Attorney General, Mr. Olney,
who held that, under that act. salt was
legally dutiable.
Mr.. Won Reichenau's note refers gen.
orally to treaties but II seems that his
particular reference Is to the treaty Of
May l. 1928, betwe the United States
and Prussia. 1t is observed by the State
Department that it Is still without any
information from the German government
on the point raised by Mr.. Olney as to
whether the treaty with Prussia is to be
taken as effective with respect to other
portions Of the empire, or is applicable
only TO the productions of Prussia ex-
ported from Prussia. As to the contention
that the tariff provision is Incompatible
with the terms of the Saratoga treaty, OF
August, 1891, the State Department takes
the position that that agreement ceased
with the passage of the tariff act Of August
"a, 1894, which repealed section OF the act
OF October 1. 1880. No reference whatever
Is made in Mr.. Won Reichenau's note 10
the other provisions of the act. which ex-
tends the scope OF the increased duties to
include all goods upon which an export
bounty is paid.