The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-03
BARRED BY GERMANS
unfair and unjustifable from any stand
point and should be rebuked.''


unfair and unjustifable from any stand
point, and should be rebuked.
NO FRUIT PESTS IN CALIFORNIA.
Representative Barlow who represents
the Sixth California district, in which is
located the fertile San Joaquin valley, one
of the great fruit districts of the State says
that, so far as California fruit is concerned
the German decree prohibiting the importa-
ton of American fruit is a mere preteXt
California fruits he said, 'are singularly
free from vermin or disease of any kind. So
jealous are our people i'll their desire to
keep our fruits free from disease that the
delegation from the State is now advocating
the passage of a bill which was introduced
in the House by Mr.. Castle, some time ago,
providing for an inspection of all fruits,
plants cuttings, shrubs. etc, imported into
this country. 1 look on the ground given
for DIR. MiguePs decree as a mere subter-
fuge No doubt exists in my mind that it
is purely q retalatory measure
THE reason advanced by the German
Foreign Office" said Representative Hill
born, OF Califarnia, lis the thinnest kind of
preteXt. Nowhere in the world is fruit so
free from disease as in California, and no
where is there more care to keep it free
from parasites and disease of all kinds. We
State from other States without inspec-
ton Other members of the California
delegation expressed similar views
Representative Mcguire of California. late
in the afternoon introduced in the House
resolution on the subject, which states
that as it is reported the Prussian govern
ment has peremptorily prohibited the i'm
portation of all kinds of American fresh
fruit, and as il is vitality important to the
fruit-growing industry of the United States
that the cause of this embargo be ascer-
tanned and, if possible, speedily removed
that the secretary of state be and is here
by requested, if consistent with the public
interests, to furnish the House of Repre-
sentatives all correspondence between the
government of the United States and the
government of Prussia on the subject of the
exclusion of American fresh fruits from the
ports and from the territory of Prussia :"
Mr.. Mcguire said: 1.-The Prussian edict ex-
Guiding American fresh fruits is undoubt-
edly a measure of commercial retaliation.
There is no foundation for it in the condi-
ton of California or other American fruits
Our tariff legislation has been distinctly and
purposely hostile to German interests in orr
commerce with that country They natural
ly feel that it is just to meet our embargo
on their trade by similar embarrassment of
our producers in trading with the people OF
Prussia
MR.. DINGLEY QUOTES OUR LAW.
Chairman Dingley looked over the Berlin
cablegram and said: This is evidently a
device to prohibit the Importation Of Ameri-
can fruits on alleged sanitary grounds, in
line with the similar prohibition of Ameri-
can pork. The importation seems to be
prohibited on sanitary grounds in order to
avoid the provisions of our commercial
treaties with Germany, which give to inn
ports from the United States equal privi-
leges with imports from other countries
There is not the slightest ground for the
allegation that California fruits are af-
fected as charged; indeed, the evidence is
conclusive that they are especially free from
parasites. The United States would have
much more ground for prohibiting the inn
portation of German wines on alleged sani-
tary grounds than Germany has to prohibit
the importation of American fruit or Ameri-
can pork on such grounds. We have no OBJ
lection to Germany putting whatever duty
it sees fit on imports of any kind. That is
her own business. But when that govern
ment undertakes to prohibit the importation
of American products on sanitary grounds
which do not exist in fact it Violates the
spirit of our commercial treaties with that
country. The President, under the act of
1880 has authority to meet just such dis
elimination as this
Mr. Dingley called attention to Section 5
of the act of 1850, now in force and appliea-
bic to the present case. 1t reads '"rhat