BELGIUM. 



of output or from the exaggeration of the draw- 

 back, and advantages derived from any surtax 

 in excess of the maximum rates fixed by the 

 treaty, which are 6 francs for refined and 5 

 francs for other sugars. Revenue officers must 

 supervise factories and refineries in each coun- 

 try. A permanent international commission of 

 surveillance will be established in Brussels, which 

 will exercise a general control, settle any litig- 

 ious questions that may arise, and decide as to 

 the admission of states that have not taken part 

 in the conference. The convention was con- 

 cluded for five years, to be continued thereafter 

 by tacit agreement from year to year, any power 

 having the right to withdraw by giving notice 

 before Oct. 31. In case such notice is given by 

 any of the contracting parties the Belgian Gov- 

 ernment will convoke within three months a new 

 conference to decide on the measures to be taken. 

 Great Britain made a special declaration that 

 during the continuance of the convention no 

 direct or indirect advantage would be given to the 

 importation of colonial sugars into the United 

 Kingdom. The Netherlands made the same en- 

 gagement in respect to the Dutch colonies. Both 

 Great Britain and the Netherlands agreed to sub- 

 mit the convention to their self-governing colo- 

 nies and invite their adhesion. The ratifications 

 were to be exchanged before Feb. 1, 1903. 



France objected to the total abolition of boun- 

 ties, wishing to retain an indirect bounty of 

 4.80 francs in order to balance the reduction in 

 the duty. Germany, supported by Austria-Hun- 

 gary, resisted the reduction of the surtax to 5 

 francs, on which England at first insisted, sup- 

 ported by Belgium and France. Germany also 

 strove hard to have the date of the going into 

 force of the convention postponed for one year 

 longer. A proposition emanated from Great Brit- 

 ain to have the cartels suppressed by law, but it 

 was withdrawn. The persons associated in the 

 cartels in Germany and Austria and all others 

 interested in growing beets or manufacturing 

 sugar opposed vigorously all the features of the 

 convention and met in conference at Berlin to 

 discuss ways of defeating it. Opposition was 

 also shown by the jam-makers and other British 

 manufacturers. Roumania, which has hitherto 

 imposed an import duty of 51 francs, desired to 

 be placed in the category of the exempt non- 

 exporting countries, but by decision of the con- 

 ference will adopt the duty of 6 francs. The 

 United States was not represented at the con- 

 ference, nor were any of the countries producing 

 cane-'sugar, neither Cuba nor the British or 

 Dutch colonies except indirectly by their home 

 governments, which represent them diplomatic- 

 ally and have undertaken to influence them to 

 sign the convention. Russia declined to take 

 part in the conference. The Russian Government 

 asserts that it does not promote the export of 

 sugar, either by direct or by indirect bounties. 

 It regulates the amount sold in the home market 

 in order to prevent overproduction and to lessen 

 the cost of production, and thereby increase 

 consumption in Russia. The Ministry of Finance 

 fixes each year the amount of sugar to be placed 

 on the home market after payment of the ordi- 

 nary excise duty of 1.75 ruble per pood, and this 

 amount is apportioned among the various pro- 

 ducers, each receiving permission to sell a cer- 

 tain quantity in Russia. Any producer wishing 

 to sell more must pay an extra excise duty of 

 3.50 rubles per pood. He may, however, export 

 as much as he pleases without paying any duty 

 whatsoever. He may also arrange with any of 

 his fellow producers to transfer to them any 



part of the allotment that he is allowed to dis- 

 pose of in Russia on payment of the ordinary 

 excise tax. If therefore he can find a market for 

 his sugar abroad he may sell at a premium his 

 right to sell sugar in Russia. The United States 

 Government has taken the view that this oper- 

 ates as an indirect bounty, and such is the opin- 

 ion held by the governments that participated 

 in the conference. The Russian Government, on 

 the contrary, contends that it gives no sugar 

 bounty, and therefore under the most-favored- 

 nation clause other countries are precluded 

 from imposing countervailing duties on Russian 

 sugar; that it would be a breach of existing 

 commercial treaties even if the Russian system 

 of regulating the home market could legitimate- 

 ly be regarded as an indirect bounty. In a note 

 to the governments which took part in the 

 Brussels conference the Russian Minister of 

 Finance said that if it could be proved that a 

 system like the Russian interferes with the natu- 

 ral development of international competition 

 the Russian Government would gladly take part 

 with the other powers in considering by what 

 means it would be possible to obviate such 

 effects; but it would only consent to do this if 

 the question were submitted for consideration in 

 its full extent, and all the consequences of indi- 

 rect measures, such as the giving of premiums, 

 the regulation of production, and the action of 

 syndicates of various kinds tolerated or pro- 

 tected by governments were made the subject of 

 discussion, and it were admitted that the agree- 

 ment arrived at should apply, not only to sugar, 

 but to other products which play a part in inter- 

 national commerce. This offer, it was hoped, 

 would show the readiness of the Russian Gov- 

 ernment to cooperate in protecting from artifi- 

 cial reduction the prices of sugar and other prod- 

 ucts on the international market. It was in 

 effect a proposal to suppress or to regulate by 

 international agreement the cartels, syndicates, 

 or trusts which have been developed in Germany 

 to a fuller extent than in other countries, not 

 the sugar cartel alone, but the steel cartel and 

 other combinations which regulate production 

 and prices and the export of surplus products in 

 all the main branches of industry which adopt 

 various methods of selling cheap abroad in 

 order to sell dear at home. The Russian import 

 duty on sugar is 6 rubles per pood on refined, 

 and 4.50 rubles on raw sugar. The Russian pro- 

 ducers are therefore protected by a surtax of 4.25 

 rubles per pood, equivalent to 32.50 francs per 

 100 kilograms. The Russian Government upheld 

 its argument that the application of counter- 

 vailing duties against Russian sugar would be 

 an infringement of treaties. It did not intend 

 to carry on a general tariff war against all the 

 powers at once, but would consider itself free to 

 disregard treaty stipulations when it saw fit and 

 to adopt such measures as would be advan- 

 tageous to Russia in the case of any of them. 

 Goods imported into Russia by industrial trusts 

 would be the first to be subjected to discriminat- 

 ing treatment. India imposed countervailing du- 

 ties on bounty-fed sugar after the failure of the 

 Brussels conference of 1898. but they were not 

 sufficient to keep out European beet-sugar, which 

 constituted more than half of the Indian im- 

 ports in 1902. Austrian sugar alone exceeded 

 the imports from Mauritius, and this was sup- 

 posed to be due to the operation of the sugar 

 cartels as revealed in the discussions at Brussels. 

 After the conclusion of the Brussels convention 

 the countervailing duty was fixed by the Indian 

 Government at a higher figure, against which 



