Delaware gazette and state journal., 1897-07-08
Th.. Policy Of ns,a,iatlnn.

this "culminnting atroCity OF class legls- |
lation. but the Dingley bill not only
bids fair to excel it in this particular.
but TO become the champion destroyer
OF the foreign trade of this country.
The reciprocity clause of the Mckinley
bill, which Janus q. Blaine declared
would "never open market to another
bushel of American wheat or another
barrel of American pork. finds more
than counterpart in tho retaliatory
clause of the Dingley bill, which the
Senate adopted yesterday.
This cause provides that whenever
any country pays a bounty on auy
article, then upon the importation of
that article into the United States
there shall he levied and paid, 10 addi
tion to tho duties otherwise imposed
by this act, an additional duty equal to
the net amount of such bounty or
grant, however the cum te paid or
bestowed. The discussion that ensued
upon this section is thus reported;
Mr.. Gray of Delaware spoke against
the amendment. saying he regarded it
as opening tho way to disregard of
our treaty obligations with at least
two European Countries-Germany and
A ustrin Hungary. lie read the protest
Of Baron Won Thielmann, the German
a ambassador, and Baron Won Hengel-
muller, tho Austrian Minister, against
the proposed discriminatory duty. Hu
argued against II not only as breach
OF international relations with friendly
Powers, but also on tho ground that
discriminatory duty was in the nature
OF a compensatory rate 10 the sugar
man ufacturers of thia country for the
cheap sugars coming from sugar pro-
ducing countries.
Mr.. Gallery of Louisiana differed
with MIR. Gray, arguing that no breach
of international obligations was in
vOlved, and thar legislation Of this
character was IN the nature OF self
preservation. to which any country
couli resort when its industries were
threatened by the payment of foreign
export hounties.
MIR. Gray further sta ed that the pro-
posed discriminatory duty, amounting
to . cents u pound on sugar, was vio-
| lation Of tho trnaty of 1928 with Frua
sia, which contained not merely "mOst
favored nation" clause, but provision
| that no higher or other duty shall be
imposed upon imports from Prussia to
| the United States or the United Statos
TO Prussia than the duty imposed on
| like articles from other countries. This
was an obligation which could not be
| honorably eyaded.
Mr.. Morgan of Alabama said new
conditions had arisen siuce the treaty
of 1928 was framed, and that Germany
had acted under tho new conditions,
thus warranting the United States
doing the Same.
Mr.. Chqudler OF New Hampshire sai,!
ho would vote for the retaliaiory clause
with extrems reluctance. lIo had been
told that Germany would begin course
of commercial warfare against ths
United Staten, and no would make
sacrifices to prevent friction between
the Empire of Germany aud tho United
States
There were circumstances now trans.
piring, he said, that would make it un
fortunate that commercial conflicts
should arse at this time between thu
United States and Germany, France
England or other countries. But thu
Senator said he did not SEQ how thil
retaliatory clause could be avoided i
the protective character of the bill wa
to be preserved.
Mr.. Lindsay Of Kentucky criticised
tho amendment as pure, undisguishat
protection without excuse as q revenu,
measure. The Senator criticised hi
Democratic associate, Mr.. Galfery, fol
defending this purely protective pro
vision.
The retalatory clause was thei
adopted by vote of 33 to 10, the tw,
Democratic Senators from Louisiana
, Calfery AMI McEnery, voting with til
Republicans in the affirmative. A lie
sire TO benefit tho sugar interosts 0
their State was no doubt their motive
, Tho effect OF such provision, however
, cannot fail Of proving disastrous TO tn
United Stntes in seriously crippling tn
J large and profitable foreign export trad
, of this country.