New-York tribune., 1903-01-26
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM TARIFFS.
A Comparison of Various Foreign Systems.

Washington. Jan. 25 (SpecaD.-A brief history
Of the maximum and minimum tariffs Of the world
has Just been issued by the Treasury Bureau IN e-
planation Of the recent introduction Of the maxi
mum and minimum tariff proposition introduced
into the Senate The maximum and minimum tariff
system corresponding as it does TO what Is termed
in this country d reciprocity arrangement is dis
rfnglished from other tariff systems in that it has
two rates on most articles en- which duties are
ir7posed In application of these rates the maxi
mum schedule corresponds to the general schedule
and the minimum schedule TO the schedule OF con-
zentiouaI tariffs since the minimum rates are
given only 10 those countries which receive the
most favored nation treatment. Concerning these
tariffs the Treasury Bureau statement says;
The characteristic difference between the two
systems: however, arises from the 6l[erenGe nee IN IN
I'D bv negotiations between the executives OF ~
Countries but is framed by the legislative body al
the same time that the maximum schedule Is Tnau-:
That is, the legislative power hXes Two rates - -
duty on each article in the tariff ne hlgneT rate s
the one which fixes the maximum extent to Wnch
try; the lower. or minimum rae - me t Cl 4+
fxes the minimum extent TO which the GUY onry ma ma
treaties at any time. these rates show the *
act limits between which the treaty rates are 10 "
The countries at present using muIttP!e or
2SiHo PTsaHa Rusga sa BrazH Greece and or75y
The present tariff OF SPaIa SPAN i 9sIes IcIIl nd nd cor
the commercial treatleS were ueLlIliGea ~ al aLu - -
sistent scheme of double rates vas drawn up -
1ounced its intention Of no longer making uncon-
ditonaI most favored nation treaties ooHltnercal 1
sTr4i1a5 tariff war broke out with Germany.
and The penalty tariffs Of several countries were
applied to Spanish goods. The relations at present
are mainly on the BASS OF provisional --i0S'
10 ~ " 1Sq3 RTssia adopted a system somewhat SINH
lar 70 5h1 6A artirIe boWever as was the case in
the French law the Russian tar1t mace taS o6s gen
T1f15r9ITn Schedule Of the new tariff. and placed
increases ranging as high as 50 per cent over the
in its entirety, and was compelled to make com
which reductions on the minimum rates were
TEN is composed Of MAXIMUM .llI1ltnl 3T anu ID
conventional schedule The conventlonaI rates are
sgrearents the minimum rates to other countries
While the maximum rates are intended to De uSeo
The Brazilian tariff Of 1900 is ARRANGED in man
rer similar the Russian The tarln contains
maximum and minimum rates, the latter 10 De aP-
piled imports from those countries when I1fds
Brazilian exports, especially colIee on d 4a
minimum system has been similar to that OF RUS
The law of 1888 provided maximum ana n nm
duced the latter so that at PresenI me tne rsLsS az ar
fiaIlv the conventional and partially the mini
IN E6rVav the maximum rates are intended TO
be used only in case Norwegian goods are treated
less favorably than those OF any other country
that IS these rates are TO De used III case 81
aIfb"eb Spain was the first country to attempt
70 use the system of maximum ana ana minimum i 5ar
bas riven tbE system It's present prominence. The
frst efforts have It adopted as me tEn en-
,arties and again in 1851 but The attempts were
ir,rlSI Ten years late however III" H7-
mand for higher rates Of duty became stronger.
and IIEI{res party viewed the plan with more
favor The method Of having conventional tailrrS
s-irb the various countries with which France had
isfaction at time. the Investigation OF
the superiOr council Of commerce showed. J. ne eN
,sring treaties were denounced, and MetlneS Dill
after some modlnCauOns, was ADOPTED IN JahudI,Et
iegisIs tive bocv should fix the limits Of the tarln
I1fes below which the executive could not go IN
me effort 10 establish commercial connections with
0rhsr That the nome industries were
- he assured that they would be disturbed by
any ATTEMPTS to alter the tdrln rates IN me mini
mum schedule and perfect stability OF conditions
was thus hoped for. on me other hand IN orueT
~ make II 10 the advantage Of foreign countries 70
/ ,,-aut concessions France, in return for which
fbev would receive the rates of the minimum tarln
vas D-oposad make the difference between
sbIe 80 that there would be gain if the minimum
rstp we're secured and loss II II were not me
author OF this bill also desired that the tarSesL
,oesfrlA r1ber of items should he included In the
Of compelling other countries TO grant low a. I'5
in return for the rates Of the minimum tarlTi- IL
any country refused TO grant either the most Ia
FrsECn
annIy +arffT rates which the French officials con
si,iered low enough the maximum tafln rates were
10 be imposed on all goods coming from or through
that country. r. =, 49,. =
Dar ,aDr-that is the maximum rates average
s5ouf y per ceut higher than those OF The minimum
rar{f Agricultural products y ere. however. gwen
rFs same rates both the maximum and MINIMUM
zrhe,i1ies Pv special decree the admiuistra ton
Vas authorized grant the minimum tari1 10 an
cttrtrias which before 1s92 had sn1oYec the con-
--s0rionaI tariff and which after that date hah
finp' treatment Accordingly only FortuBal Na1
S1biected 10 the complete maximum tar1rr ana the
United States 70 part or H. -s., - ..,-
The administration was not succesaful Ia nam