New-York tribune., 1901-02-16
THREATS or A TARIFF WAR.

Enemies Of the American system are eagerly
seizing upon the dispute over duties upon Rus
sian sugar as an awful example Of the way in
which Protection involves this country in ON
barrasSing and ruinOus tariff wars. The fact
is. of course. that this country under Protection
has been particularly free from tariff wars,
and if the present dispute should lead to one
il probably will nOt-it would be notable chiefly
for its singularity As n matter of fact. Pro
lection is not especially involved in the case
which turns rather upon a question of Justice
and good faith in dealings with various
foreign nations. Under treaty we are bound
not to discriminate against one nation in favor
of another. That is the obligation we are
called upon 10 fulfil: and il would be equally
binding under revenue tariff or any other
system.
Under the treaties. we levy upon imported
sugars cOuntervailing duties corresponding TO
the export bounties the governments of the
exporting countries pay upon them. That is
done in the ease of Germany. for example 10
the entire satisfaction of both sides II was
formerly done in the ease of Russia. But
some months ago this country suspended the
countervailng duty upon Russian sugar. on
The strength of assurances that no export
bounty paid upon il. Now the United
States Treasury reimposes that duty. on the
ground that, while technically the Russian
Government may not pay an export bounty.
there is in operation a system of Government
aid 10 sugar producers and importers which in
effect amounts 10 the same thing At this
there is lot of injudcious talk about reprsals
tariff wars. loss of Russian trade. and what
lot, the bulk Of which is entirely apart from
the actual issue.
The prime question to be decided is whether
not the Russian fiscal system so favOrs ex-
ports Of sugar in effect TO pay bounty
upon them. OF course a rebate of domestic
taxation, or a guarantee of maintenance of
price would be practically equivalent 20 a
direct bounty. This question is one to be de-
cided by careful and judicial Investigation of
the facts; and when once the facts are made
known and are judicially passed upon there
need be no fear OF dissent from or resistance
to the conclusions. Neither this country nor
Russia wants a tariff war. and neither. il is
TO be assumed. wants 10 evade its treaty OBJ
legations. However. no menace of such a war
could properly affect the course Of this Nation.
That is 80 because both of duty and Of interest
The United States is bound to keep faith with
Germany by treating her sugar as favorably
as IL does that from Russia III il lid nor do
So and if IL showed favors 10 Russia which
il withheld from Germany IL would surely
provoke feprlsils lfolh the latter; and nothing
/ is more evident than that a tariff war with
/ Germany would be far more disastrous thau
one with Russia. Our relations with Germany
are incomparably closer than with Russia. and
our trade with her is the larger by some
| eighteen times. Our trade with Russia IL ,n
| fact a minor item in American foreign com
merce, being a mere fraction of that with Uol-
land or Belgium. and of considerably less i'm
portanee than that with Denmark. Spain and
some of the South American States.
on the ground Of selfish interest. therefore
the maintenance OF amicabe trade relations
with Germany would be- far more eagerly
sought than with Russis. But that. We NAV
| trust. is not the ground on which the mat,ar
is to be settled On rhe higher ground Of good
faith and inst Interpretation Of treaty ohlica.
tions settlement should he effected which
! will be equitable 10 all parties concerned. and