Show PROBLEM PRO LEM AS ASTO ARTO TO New York Tork F Feb FeIt 4 According to a special from to the Jour Journal Jo i imel mel nal of Commerce there are two ate ak t pacts peets to tet the problem of whether A a a countervailing duty shall be laid upon sugar imported from froom fp Russia Rus ia on the Ute I ground round that the tM system St m of regulating re sugar production In is I lent to a bounty which will be care I fully full considered by b Secretary Gage be I fore announcing a decision derIsIon One re reto latent lates to t the fact face the other to their legal interpretation x The facts were pretty prett well ell lacer ascer ascertained tined tamed by b a special agent of the trees treas treasury ury wh wine went to te Ru l summer I The system In I 1 complicated but has been fullY set forth in the report which Is before Mr Gage The question of how the facts shall be interpreted is isnow Isnow Isnow now under tinder consideration Attorney General Griggs has lias been asked by Mr Gage for fr his opinion The facts appear to indicate that there is It i no payment mt by the Russian government to the sugar growers but buta a considerable tax is levied and pro pm te restricted res to Driven a amount for each establishment e The excess f production must be marketed abro ll but the gross grO production tion including g that sold abroad contributes to the adjustment of the allowance of the production of oC the following year ear ItIs It Itis is in the Internet interest t of producers who do tie sire to increase their future quota ta to In I purchase the be certificates of 01 exportation II from thoU those who have a sue sur surplus ur plus pius but are less lese concerned to Increase their quota I TIus the purchasers of the certificates cert cates are able to secure a larger alIo anee for the future while the porter e receives a premium from front the purchaser er I of the certificate over and above the price he receives for tor the sugar I It If Is Js contended by hy th the th advocates of a countervailing duty the entire en t Ire ma machinery chinery is under the control of the gov government government I and ad that tIia the th exporter does in fact receive a bounty through gov government intervention In It Is contended that there Is no bounty involved but that the entire arrangement is a sort of pooling contract between different sugar Bugar manufacturers wile who are taxed I heavily in any event and receive no j I substantial aid from their r government t Which of these views Is correct is a problem the secretary of the treasury I must eventually deci L |