The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-08-16
AMERICAN PORK.
Harrison'S Message to Congress
on the Subject.
Efforts TO Have the French Government Re-
move It's Prohibition.
Minister Reid'S Conclusive Arguments to
Ribst-The Mckinley Bill Used
as a Subterluge.


Will S6nat6 TeSOlullOD, dll TIE COlIt-
spondence not already submitted to Con-
gress touching the efforts made by this
Government to secure modification or the
repeal by the French Government of its
decree of 1881, prohibiting the impor-
tation into France of American pork
and kindred American products. In his
letter of transmittal the President inclosed
letter from Acting Secretary of State
Wharton, who says: This correspond
ence discloses the important fact that the
French Government practically places
its exclusion Of our pork products
upon economic instead OF sanitary
grounds, As this policy of exclusion, as a
measure for the protection of the domestic
products of France. is applied only to the
United States. this department has not
failed to protest against the discrimination
as unjust.
REDS LETTER.
In letter from Minister Reid to Secre-
tary Blaine. dated June 2s, 1889, in answer to
n letter from the latter, which has already
been published, Reid says any steps taken
lohdlu lOIuhlI6 tbC abtOHbiph VI buO iChNu
Government to the subject. would seem in
opportune. He also says the French Gov
ernment rather fayors the removal of the
prohibition.
On July 18th the acting Secretary wrote
to Reid approving his suggestion. A letter
from W. B. Franklin, Commissioner Gene
raj of the United States at the Paris Expo
sition, to Blaine gives in substance
int nrtfiA hnt pai1 nd II
lin and Spuller, the French Minister of
Foreign Affairs, at which Spuller admitted
that the citizens of France did not believe
the consumption of Americn pork by them
would injure the health of the consumers.
Spuller added, however. that there would
be some difficulty in having the prohibition
removed on account of the protecti0niSt
feeling.
sPULLER's REPLY.
In response to an invitation given by
Reid to inspect American pork products at
the exposition, Spuller, on November &c.
1899, sent note stating that in
the opinion of his colleagues, VINO
had charge of the Health Department,
the inspection of the meat shown in
the exhibition would not have the import
ance Reid's letters seem to give it. as the
superior quality of the meat had already
been established by rewards, and would not
prove that the mass Of American hog prod
ucts is equally good.
Included in the correspondence is letter
from Blaine to Reid, inclOsing letter from
the Secretary of Agriculture, giving his
tory Of the "harsh and unreasonable re-
stricti0ns"-to quote Blaine" imposed by
the Governments of France. Germany and
Great Britain against the importation of
American live animals and hog products"
INSTRUCTIONS TO REID.
In his letter to Reid, which is dated
March 4, 1880, Blaine instructS Reid to ex-
press the hope to the French authorities
that the French Governmentm now be
prepared to extend equitable relief from
these unjust measures" Blaine adds that
the United States Ministers to England and
Germany have been similarly instructed.
Early in July Reid called on Ribot, the
French Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in
a letter TO Secretary Blaine, dated July
18th, he says that during the interview
Ribot continued as he had done on every
similar occasion previously to state that the
agitation over the Mckinley bill made any
action on this point extremely difficult.
Reid protested that France was the aggres-
sor and should take the first step.
A voluminous letter dated July Sd was
sent to Ribot by Reid. The American Min
show Rib0t the mistake France is making
in excluding pork, and quotes statistics to
carry out his argument. He hints at the
possible prohibition Of French wines by the
United States. owing to the growth OF the
wine industry in this country, and refers to
the effect such action would have on France.
THE TARIFF BILL.
On July IL, 1890. Ribot sent note to
Reid, in which he said the difficulties in
the way OF removing the prohibition had
been attended by measures which were
finally passed or voted on by the House of
Representatives. and which do not fail to
raise Just complaints on the part OF the
French Government. Ribot referred to the
Tariff Bill and Customs Administrative
Bill
Reid in a letter to Ribot. dated July 2S,
1890, asks pardon for endeavoring to show
that this is view of the situation which
the facts do not warrant. The existing
rule as to the exclusion of American pork
has not been modified" says Mr.. Reid in
his letter. Not step to that end, so far
as is known, has been taken, and there is
no evidence that there will be.
Besides there would appear to be no simi-
Iarity or just relation of any kind between
the two subjects which your ExcelleDcy
couples-the French exclusion of American
pork and the two American bills, currently
called the Mckinley bills; nor is any
reason apparent why the continuance of
ODO ouOuiu DC JuoLiucu ny JUuI dpplt-
tensions as to the others.
DIFFERENCE IN THE BILLS.
There is every reason to believe that if
experience shows any defect or injustice in
the working of American bills they will be
modified. The French decree, in spite of
argument and remonstrance, in spite even of
proof that it does nobody any good, has
been tenaciously maintained unchanged
for nine years.
The American bills touchI all countries
with absolute impartiality. The French
decree singles out the United States from
all other countries and prohibits its prod
ucts alone, while similar products from the
rest of the world are admitted. The Amer
ican bills make no charges against the quail
ity of the product whose importation they
regulate or tax. The French decree Is based
upon
THE INDEFENsIBLE CHARGE
That the American product excluded is un-
wholesome; though this charge has been
repudiated by the French Academy of Med
icine itself, and though this prohibited and
unwholesome product has recently been
crowned by the highest prize OF your own
universal exposition. France Is, and has been
for nine years past the persistent aggressor.
1t has absolutely prohibited the importation
of an American product on indefensible
charges. 1t still maintains this prohibition
In spite OF demonstrated facts that nothing
is thereby gained, either for Its own con-
sumers or It's producers, and the only ap-
preciable effect is to do an injustice to a
century-old friend, and discriminate against
that friend in favor of Germany,
Italy and England. After such
a record, and in advance of the slightest
known movement to amend it, how can
France have reason to expect. as your Ex-
cellency indicates, that its evidence OF good
will should now be reciprocated by the
United States? He who seeks justice
should first do justice. Much more
should that nation which seeks friendly
consideration for its merchants refrain first
from injustice to the merchants of the
country appealed to, and from the de-
famation Of that country's products.
FRANCES OVERSIGHT.
After calling attention to an offer from
Washington to modify the Customs Bill at
the request of France in regard to appeals
from cases If allapad undervnluniinn