Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1901-07-18

FRED'K Il. BURGESS.
stock In the hands Of the refiners a whole
and to get rid Of this surplus it is exported.
Now, a method exists by which ref1ner A
can get the benefit Of the failure of retner
F. to supply the home market with his full
quota, Home reflner A becomes willing to
pay refner Il a certain reward II he will
export a portion Of his allotted quota and
give A the official evidence Of such expor-
tation, which enables A to sell in the home
market at a tax Of 175 an equivalent por-
ton of the sugar produced by him (A) in
excess of his quota.
.. The ma xtmum prices fixed by the min
lister of finance are always practically
reached by the trade. and are such as to
give very large profit TO the producer.
particularly in those provinces where, ow-
ing to d better economic condition of the
popula ton. the demand for sugar exceeds
the local supply from the stock entitled to
withdrawal for consumption at single
tax. The ability Of the producers Of sugar
in certain regions to obtain higher prices
than those obtained in other regions gives
rise to the arrangement mentioned in para
graph 4.
H. While 1t could not be directly inferred
from the wording of the statute itself that
the government, in arranging its system of
sugar taxation, contemplate an encour
agement to export this object Is clearly
expressed in the instruction issued in pur-
snance of the statute by the minister OF
finance. wherein this arrangement is ex-
pressly declared to be made ''n order to
facilitate the expectation of the SURPRISES
to foreign countries" little ID. Art. II,
Secs. 80 and 40) That ii results in a bonus
from some source to those who export
sugar there can he no doubt.
More than ordinary grave consequences
were involved The law imposed upon the
f,ft ho thn I,,t. NfI do,
cidins whether or not Russia paid bounty
urging that the imperial government did
pay such a bounty were other beet-sigar
producing countries of Europe, competi-
tors of Russia in the worlds market. Thor
contention was that the United States
ought not to give Russia any advantage
which that country evidently would pos
sess in case 1t were held that 1t was not a
bounty-payinR country. The Russian au-
thorities gave warning that a decision ad-
verse to their contention would result In
the imposition of maximum duties on pro-
ducts OF the United States imported by
Russia.
In the United States the controversy was
waged furously. The agricultural sections
Interested in the raising a! sugar heets
earnestly supported the bounty paying the
DRY, while American manufacturers, alarm
ed at the possible consequences of a de-
cison that Russia actually raid a bounty,
der the law there was only one question
for the secretary of the treasury to decide:
Did Russia pay bounty? Every agency
available to the treasury department WAS
utilized for obtaining the best informa ton
t. be had At first the secretary of the
treasury believed that his jurisdiction over
the question was exclusive. The subject
being one OF grave Importance. in accord ,
ance with the usual custom he determined
TO ask legal advice Of the attorney general
his course was informally entered upon
but before the attorney general had time
to render his opinion. which still would on
Iy have been advisory, the United States
circuit court of appeals, in decision hand o..
ed own Feb. &. 1901, in what is known as
the Netherland sugar bounty case QIills
Bros. VS.. United States), held that the Uni
ted States board of general appraisers had
jurisdiction of the veS' question. From the
decision of the board of general appraisers
there is, of course. an appeal to the courts.
Here. then, was the opportunity for jul
dicial review of the question. 1t is plainly
to be seen that If Secretary had held that
Russia did not pay bounty, that would
have ended the case, even though his de-
CisiOn might have been a grieVous error.
In that event, there would have been no
one who would have had the power to take
an appeal on behalf of the government. On
the other hand, decision that Russia did
pay "A bounty still left abundant opportu-
MY LOT the ulSSdtlSnel importer or RuS
sian sugar 10 protest and by appeal to car
ry his case to the board of general ap-
praisers. and then to the courts If he saw
lit.
The reasoning of the secretary of the
treasury, In coming to the conclusion that
Russia pays bounty, is given in his in
structionS on the subject:
! The law is rot declaratiNe as to who
shall determine the fact that a bounty
or grant Is paid or bestowed"
In the present case the facts are involved
and the conclusions to be drawn from them
are correspondence difficult. At the con-
ference of delegates on the question of
sugar bounties, held in Brussels in June,
lsS, the Belgian and Austrian delegates
contended that the Russian government
regulations resulted in an indirect bounty
or exported sugar equal to the difference
between the price exclusive of excise taxi
OF sugar sold in that country for home
consumption and the price of sugar sold
, for export.
Russia. on the other hand, protests with
great vigor that by no act of hers is any
bounty or grant paid or bestowed on the
expectation Of sugar
4 It is represented that Russian sugar Is
} sold for export at prices considerably be-
low the cost of production, and this phe-
, nOmenon appears TO he in some degree due
, to the regulation of the sugar industry of
that country by the Russian government.
DO the Russian government regulations
, have such a bearing upon tn, facts of the
, case as to bring Russian sugar within the
intent OF said law disclosed by its
, terms? While the question in its initiative
! lies with the administration of the treas
, ury department, tho question is of jude
, ia rather than of an adminsti ative char.
meter, and it's Importance demands deter
! mnation by judicial tribunal. The hoard
4 of general appraisers constitutes such a
tribunal, and from its decisions appeal ma J
be taken to the United States courts.
. AS an administrative offi GER, II Is my duty
, to determine questions OF doubt In favor Of
the government, the more so that Ii err
in that direction the error can be readily
: corrected by a competent tribunal upor
c protest and appeal by those adversely al,
fected. while If by my action the interest:
of the government are injuriously affected
1 there Is no remedy.
, In the present case there seems to be nc
I other proper course than the one you are
Y hereby instructed to pursue, 1t ought tC
g bring the whole question promptly before
/. "A body constituted to hear and determine
r disputed questio of fact ana of law,
< The jurisdiction of the board of 5enera
appraisers to determine similar question:
T. has now bssR saststnea bx the paitse