The record-union., 1892-04-04
THE COMPLAINT OF A CALIFOR.
NIA-STREET MERCHANT.

Z THE COMPLAINT OF A CALIFOR-
NIA-STREET MERCHANT.
The difficulties under which San Fran
cisco labors as the one supreme distribut-
ing point for the commerce of the Pacific
Coast are well illustrated in a recent COM
plant made to San Francisco news
paper concerning the advantages Of Chi
cago as against San Francisco with re-
spect of trade with the interior of this
coast.
The paper in question says that con-
tinual misrepresentation concerning the
purposes of the Traffic Association
which are circulated by certain news
papers of more or less influence in the
interior Of the State, in the opinion of the
Traffic Association members, ought not
to go uncontradicted. The instance to
which reference is about to be made is
cited in defense of the Traffic Associa-
ton and its purposes. Let us now ex-
anime the nature of the complaint, and
we call the specific attention of our jour-
nalistic contemporaries in San Francisco
and of the merchants of the interior to
the principle which this case illustrates.
The case is as follows:
Said q California-street merchant: sWe
have q carload rate on our goods OF 81 Us per
hundredweight for transportation from Chi
cago TO San Francisco. The rate on hundred
weight OF the same commodity, from Chicago
10 Fresno is So. The local rate from San
Francisco to Fresno is over half the rate per
hundredweight from Chicago to Fresno, being
In fact 90 cents per hundredweight. Add this
30 cents TO the carload rate of 81 rs from
chicago, and you can see what chance there is
Cor US TO do jobDing trade with the interior
IN these goods. With the local rates added it
costs us 80 66 per hundredweightt to lay down
in Fresno goods brought from Chicago in car
load lots, while the Chicago jobber delivers
the same goods for S2."
This is plain, unequivocal statement
of San Francisco's case Now what does
it prove? 1t declares that the rate to
San Francisco through Fresno is 81 rs
per hundredweight, while the rate from
Chicago to Fresno is 81 per hundred
weight. There is a discrimination in
favor of San Francisco of 25 cents on a.
hundred pounds; that the rate back from
San Francisco to Fresno is 90 cents per
hundredweight by carload; that therefore
when the through rate and local rate are
added, it exceeds the through rate from
Chicago to Fresno; and this is San Fran
cisco's complaint.
We have called attention over and over
again to the fact that San Francisco de-
slres a rate which win carry goods
through Fresno, Stockton, Marysville,
Sacramento and other points on the line
OF communication. at lower rate than
the aggregate through rate to San Fran
cisco and the way rate back to the point
through which this freight has once been
carried. What San Francisco asks by
this very complaint is that Fresno shall
be put at such disadvantage with refer
ence to the commerce carried through it
that the town will be obliged to buy in
San francisco, thus establishing in San
Francisco monopoly of trade as against
Eastern cities. And yet this infinitely
stupid proposition is put forth as proof
that San Francisco asks no advantage of
interior point }. This is the broadest con-
fession of everything we have said on
this subject. Here is a California
street merchant saying to Mr.. Leeds,
the Traffic Manager, who edits
the San Francisco Bulletin on this
subject, that as an illustration of the ad-
yantages that are accorded to Chicago
merchants over San Francisco merchants
the rate from Chicago to Fresno is 81,
while to San Francisco it is 81 70. The
merchant goes on to say ''This is the way
the Southern Pacific Company ties us
up" This is a ''tie up'' with a ven
geance. This California-street merchant
and Mr.. Leeds, the Traffic Manager, who
is getting a salary to take care of San
Francisco's commercial interests, would
have the rate to Fresno from Chicago so
nigh and the rate to San Francisco so low
that goods might be carried through
Fresno to San Francisco and sent back
again in competition with the merchant
illustrates the whole case, and the Butle-
tan, which published this statement, is so
stupid as not to see in it the broadest con-
fession of all that we have said on the
subject
In the interest of fair argument we ap-
peal to the Bulletin. 1t has eountenanced
a complaint the remedy of which is that
it shall carry goods to San Francisco at
rate which discriminates in favor of that
city. That there shall be no escape from
the conclusion we cite the case and the
complaint: That whereas goods are car
ried to San Francisco from Chicago at
81 75 per hundredweight, they are carried
from Chicago to Fresno at 81 per hun
dredweight. In exact justice we woald
be disposed to deny to the railroad COM
pany the right to carry goods about two
hundred miles further for twenty-five
cents per hundredweight less than to the
shorter distance. But what San Fran
cisco and the Bulletin are demanding
is that the rate shall not ONLY
be so much less to San Francisco than to
Fresno, but that even after the local rate
from San Francisco is paid back to
Fresno, there shall be large margin in
favor OF. San francisco and against
Fresno. 1t has not occurred either to the
Bulletin or to this California-street mer-
chant, nor to Mr.. Leeds, who has been