Sacramento daily record-union., 1883-10-19
ACTION OF FEE CHAMBER OF COM,
MERCR.

Why the San Francisco Chamber of
Commerce should have tabled the PROPOSE.
tinn to indcrse. the petition to Congress to
establish postal telegraph system is not
clear. There appears to have been no de-
bate on the question. Trade interests are
as much interested in the scheme as any
other and should favor it, unless unan.
swersble economic objections can be ad-
duced against it, and we know of none
thst can be
The judgment of the Chamber was wise
in indorsing the plan for a national bank
rnpt law. That which the nation lately
tried was full Of defects, and especially
costly, and heavy in its processes but
bankrupt law that will reduce the posi-
bilities of fraud to the minimum, give the
creditors the management of the estate
and by which the Courts will simply act as
checks, is possible. This is not saying that,
the scheme now advanced and known as
the Lowell plan is SO complete as to be ap-
proved in all its details But, generally, a
uniform bankruptcy law which places the
administration of the debtors estate under
business, instead of judicial management,
is desirable.
The resolve of the Chamber in favor of
permitting citizens of the United States to
purchase foreign built vessels for register
under our flag TO ply between Atlantic
and Pacific coast ports, was in the right di.
rection. Generally, this affords us oppor-
tunity to say, we are in favor of free ships
and OF any legitimate scheme to help the
American carrying trade. There seems to
be no good reason why we should not own
foreign built ships. It is said that propo-
sitiou will cripple American ship. building.
The response, of course, ID that the carry.
ing trade is of the first Importance. Amer
ican ship-builders cannot be reduced to any
greater straits than those in which they are
now placed. The friends of free ships in
the last Congress were unquestionably in
the right. The American ship-owner, as
Mr. Cox pointed ont, must compete with
the foreigner for the ocean carrying trade,
whether foreign-built ships are admitted to
American registry or not. When we can
buy ships anywhere for foreign carrying
we advance our trade that much, sharing
the worlds clrrying patronage with our
rivals.
Bat, to return TO the proceedings of the
Chamber, the National Board of Trad g |
asked the Chamber to indorse the plan to |
permit free withdrawal from bonded ware.
houses Of foreign materials TO be used in |
til construction and repair of American |
vessels for the foreign trade. This the /
Chamber deemed not broad enough. and |
adopted. instead, a accommodation for the |
free withdrawal Of materials and the re. |
funding to the payers of any duty paid on |
such materials. This is not TO he eonsid. |
cred as a bounty, and it is not therefore
open so objection. But the National
Board, having asked the concurrence of
the Chamber in the plan to psrmi. Amer
icAn constructors Of ships for the foreign
trade to draw from the United States
. sum equal to what they would have paid
in dates on foreign materials, but where
American and not foreign materials are
used, was objected TO, and instead direct
bounty, proportioned to tonnage, was ad.
vissd according to the French system.
The draw back scheme is, in effect.
bounty scheme, and both il and The
French plan are Questionable. The free.
ship policy is the correct one. The bounty
pclicY means an assessment upon taxpayers
TO foster a particular industry, and will
give no aid whatever to the American car.
ryirg trade. The bounty business will not,
We think, be tolerated BY the people. It
is species Of protection which has all the
bad features OF the theory, and not one Of
tse alleged redeeming ones.