Mr. Uhl to Mr.
Olney.
Embassy
of the United States,
Berlin, January 25,
1897. (Received February 12.)
No. 253.]
Sir: Referring to my dispatch No. 201, of the
4th ultimo, in regard to the alleged discrimination against American
woods by railways in Germany under Government control, I have the honor
to transmit herewith a copy, with a translation, of a note just received
from the foreign office, in which an explanation is given, which the
German Government hopes will convince the Government of the United
States that there is no differential treatment of woods of American
origin.
A copy of this note has been sent to Mr. Carl Gartner, of Hamburg, and it
will in part depend upon the character of the reply received from [Page 238] him in regard to it whether I
shall take further action in the matter at once or whether I shall await
instructions from the Department.
I also transmit a copy of my note, F. O. No. 153, of the 13th instant, on
this subject, to which a further reply has been promised me, and have
the honor to be, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No.
253.]
Mr. Uhl to
Baron von Rotenhan.
Embassy of the United States,
Berlin, January 13, 1897.
F. O. 153.]
Referring to his note of the 1st ultimo, F. O. 128, on the subject of
an alleged discrimination prejudicial to the commercial interests of
the United States in the matter of freight tariffs on certain woods
exported from the United States, imposed by the managements of the
railroads under the control of the German governments, the
undersigned, ambassador, etc., of the United States of America, has
the honor to inform His Excellency Baron von Rotenhan, acting
secretary of state for foreign affairs, that it has recently been
brought to his knowledge that a decision favorable to the American
interests has just been made by the “Kammer fur Handelssachen” in
Cassel, and that in a suit brought by the firm M. B. Bodenheim, of
that place, [against] the Railway “Fiscus,” it has been ordered that
the excessive freight charged on American woods is to be returned.
In two cases, however, in suits brought by Carl Gartner, of Hamburg,
before the Oberlandesgericht at Karlsruhe, and the Amtsgericht at
Erfurt, decisions (from which it is understood appeals have been
taken) which it appears are grounded upon the difference in the
botanical names of the woods in question have been rendered in favor
of the railway authorities.
The undersigned avails himself, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No.
253.—Translation.]
Baron von
Rotenhan to Mr. Uhl.
Foreign Office,
Berlin, January 22,
1897.
Referring to the notes of the 1st ultimo and the 13th instant (128
and 153), the undersigned has the honor to inform his excellency the
ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the United States of
America, Mr. Edwin F. Uhl, that he at that time acquainted the
appropriate home authorities with the contents of General Runyon’s
note of the 9th of March, 1894, regarding the tariff rates placed on
American woods on German state railways.
These authorities at that time had already considered, on account of
complaints made by German importers of American woods, whether the
German railway freight tariff of the state railways covering these
points ought to be altered or applied differently than heretofore.
These considerations, in which the contents of the aforesaid note
were borne in mind, have, however, reached their termination in the
conclusion to leave the wording and application of the tariff
applied as heretofore. Such [Page 239] kinds of wood will, therefore, as has heretofore been the case,
whenever they are not subject to cultivation for commercial purposes
in middle Europe, as for instance certain kinds of American oak and
pine, be compelled to pay the higher rate according to Special
Tariff I. The undersigned can not, however, find that there is a
differential treatment in this, as is alleged in the note of March
9, 1894. Not the fact that the wood grew and was cut in America
caused its falling under the higher freight rate of Special Tariff
I, but the fact that it belongs to a special species of that class
(genera) which is not cultivated for commercial purposes in middle
Europe. For the rest, the difference between certain kinds of middle
European and American oak and pine which have been considered in the
various tariffs is not only as stated of a purely botanical but also
of a financial nature, as it is well known that the different kinds
of American as well as other foreign wood which generally come into
question and which pay a higher tariff are of a greater value than
those growing in middle Europe. Moreover, it is just this ratio of
value which at the time caused the classification of goods, for
railway tariff purposes as for other reasons, which led to the
creation of tariff “positions” for woods. Only on account of the
difficulty of specifying the different kinds of valuable woods, and
on account of the possibility that through continued introduction of
new kinds this list might become incomplete, was it thought best
that this general expression be chosen and maintained in this part
of the tariff, which, it is true, might lead to the misconception
that the different kinds of wood are treated differently, not on
account of their species, but on account of the place from which
they come.
The undersigned regrets that he can not under the circumstances give
any assurance that there will be a change in the rates of tariff on
the different kinds of American wood, but expresses the hope that
the foregoing explanation will convince the Government of the United
States that neither the existing tariff nor its execution carries
with it a differential treatment of wood of American origin.
As nothing is known at this office regarding the decisions of the
courts regarding tariff rates on American wood, as mentioned in the
note of the 13th instant, the undersigned permits himself to reserve
a further reply upon this point, after the necessary investigations
have been made.
The undersigned avails himself, etc.,
