The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1910-11-22
GERMAN TAX ON POTASH Nv
PORTS.
(Atlanta Constituti0rN

tAtlanta constitution
The final word In the dispute oy..
potash exports from Germany In ~
United States is in direct vioiat5o~ "
the pledges made Heretofore b,. VI
kaiser's government to our State d.,
partment h a contracts ALREADY on.
tered into would not be affected D..
the new law of the Reichstag.
Back Of all the suhterfuges. vararfss
and antiquities of the new law looms
the plain fact that the German owners
of potash mines wished 10 force Anar.
lean purchasers to cancel contracts al
ready entered into.
All the potash interests in this conn,
try who purchased the supplies need.
ed by them in the manufactures ~
commercial fertilizers, chemicals and
explosives through the international
Agricultural Corporation Of New York
including the great proportion of the
Southern interests, will be forced to
pay a tax Of s22 a ton on exports OF
potash from Germany.
This means that the goods cons
tracted for on a basis of see q ton VIII
cost ultimately sA2 q ton.
The latest explanation Of this tax IS
that it is imposed, not as an export
tax, but as a penalty on the mines.
which have exceeded the output al
lowed under the apportionment fixed
by law.
But it must not be forgotten that
the law vas passed following the con-
clusiOn of these contracts.
On these contracts, covering a Pc
riod of sever years. it is estimated hg
the committee representing the Amer
lean potash interests that American
purchasers are to be taxed IS, eco. zoe
a year.
Potash is a plant food that is abso-
1utelv necessary to the Southern cot
ton farmer who uses commercial fer
filters.
The German action thus places upon
these interests A tax Of $40, %000.00Q.
which. in the long rrr, VIII come out
Of the pockets Of the ultimate con
sumer. as all such taxes invariably DO.
The evasion which has characterized
the action of The German government
in handling this question. Their insist
ence that discretion in interpreting the
| law was placed in the Bundesrath, and
that Americans who had bought in
GOOD faith would be protected, and.
finally, the blunt confession that the
law would be enforced gains South~
ern manufacturers Of commercial fer
| t~iliZers who had bought supplies IN
Germany, does not contribute 10 'he
| feeling of amity between these two
| countries.
If it is true that Germany seeks 10
| restrict the mining and exportatIoh oI
| kainit and muriate Of potash, either us
q measure to maintain prices or IoF
other reasons. the tax levied under III,
recent law should certainly be placed
upon the mines which sold III excess
Of their allotment, rather thah '"s,
purchaser who purchased III E0ou
faith.
The seller is the man TO be peI|-
ICED, for he sold in violation oil '"7
law-not the innocent p~urchaStt.
An analogous case WoHId ne 10l -,
United States to ~penali2e the r3i.'u
mills OF ENGLAND or German. il ~
| bought cotton in excess Of a sPe:.-S0
amount. of which they were III -
| rance at the time they contracted l+
their years supplies.
Potash is needed to raise me t".., w.
| that Fermanv consumes in haf INNS
What would GERMANY say 10 "N ~
port duty on cotton?
The trick played on Southef,
| ers and fertilizer interests bF i'' @~t.
man o~overr~ent &c 2 sorry on 81.
American State Department ~
TO American business intefeNi5
tinue to seek ro7rocc
->rtS u~nN-N