New-York tribune., 1901-06-19

nsssd on an ignorance OF fact and q shallow view
OK the law governing the oficiaI duties of Sec
rItStary or the Treasury In the first place, M de
Mitte is mistaken in the assertion that the Secre-
opinion Of the American Consul. Mr. HOLLOWAY. He
had before him the Russian law and regulations in
and passed fully the merits Of the question.
i ms was the only way provided in customs admin
lstfatlon by which the could be brought for
decision before the Board of General Appraisers
winch was specially organized by Congress Judi
cialy to determine all such questions with the
ultimate right of either party appeal TO the
Every Well informed lawyer or jurist versed in
customs law must come to the conclusion that no
me Secretary than the one he adopted. The fol-
OF Finance. sounds strangely undplomatic from the
mouth Of high officer of State. and l have every
opportunity for knowing that the reverse of the
The present case" he said. 'fs merely an in
stance OF the curse of the power of the trusts in
The greatest pressure Of the so-caIeJ trusts is
TAR as influence could be brought hear in the
nndsno an an ofhcer of less courage and indie
ho IL OF character and more political pliancy
than the one now presiding the administration
tempted not to turn so deaf an ear to the i'm
portunlties of politicians and the of clamor-
with Russia had been injuriously affected
The present status of the controversy seems not
decision in April last after affording all interests
an opportunity to be heard, The Russian law and
and efs The board Wth
peal was taken from the boards decision to the the
United States Circuit Court. and the case is now
pending there for decision
FACTS OVERLOOKED BY NJ DE wITTE
Some facts overlooked by the Russian Minister
deserve attention I'm this controversy. The subject
OF sugar bounties was considered at great length
Britain. Russia, Austria France and other Cont
mental powers. held AT Brussels i'm June 1895 The
object Of the conference looked 10 an international
convention aboshing all direct and indirect bOun-
ties on sugar. whether bestowed internally or on
ference that the Russian law bestowed such
bounty of the kind desirable to he abolished Rus
sla however. declined. through her delegate, even
10 discuss the bearing of her internal legislation
the subject. which the Austrian delegate pro-
II manifestly appears to be when subjected 10
thorough ANALYSIS in the light of judicial decisions
law law almost identical in language with Section
oL treat Br1tan (Act No. II of 1890. passed by
me Governor General OF India in CounciD. The
..t, ssua.on, nave given II precisely the same
struction as that adopted by Secretary Gage and
covers bounty or grant, such as that bestowed
ey the Russian law. This decision is not based as
RENTS. exportaton her internal revenue tax on
sugar but upon that fact taken in connection with
accomplished through the granting OF transferable
s,s which are sold in the market. and have
country. ee Vi 'hat
The policy Of Russia in refusing N discuss III.
sup1ect mas beer followed up by recent order OF
the Minister of Finance made since the boards de
cison, forbidding the prices of these ceTttsca &c t
any longer to be quoted In tba stoct GeancStes @
the purpose OF this action be otherwise than to
a kind which goes to establish the exsta tueice oi
exact nature Of their government bounty on sugar?
The recent convention Of American nanufscfI,-
ers held at Detroit readily perceived the remedy
dor me existing evils df any) disturbing trade and
sla, s, Iney placed the responsibility where il be-
sSngs s, ana called on the Congress OF the United
act. knowing that IL is for that body and NOT FOR
me me courts; TO amend or repeal laws by legislation
and does not permit legislation.