The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-02-12
A SECRET ATTACK.
Senator Frye's "EhnoCent"
Little Bill.
TO CONTROL OUR COMMERCE.
san Francisco Merchants Score a
Measure as Calculated TO Play
Into Huntington'S Hands.

The merchants of San Francisco are talk
ing Indignantly about what they say is a
new attack upon Pacific Coast commerce
A substantial hope Of Acknowledgement
from railroad shackles was. they say. prom
iSed them in the North American Nayg a.
ton Company. which viii do business be-
tween here and New Y ork by Panama.
But the action Of the new company they
declare to be now threatened by an inno-
cent-seeming bill proposed in Washington
last Friday, by Senator Frye.
The new company has been considering
the chartering of steamers for immediate
use on the Pacific, and it has appeared pcs
sible that American steamers cannot be
procured at once here.
Consequently the North American Navi-
CATION Company has forwarded an applica-
ton to the Treasury Department through
the Collector Of this port, asking permission
10 use foreign steamers, if necessary, for
period of sixty days.
Now comes Senator Frye before the Sen
ate with his little bill.
The latter is entitled, ITO prohibit the
TRANSPORTATION from one American port 10
another American port through toreign
port" and in explaining II last FRIDAY lie
said the bin q as ''aimed at tramp steamers
taking merchandise from New ORR to
Bremen or Antwerp and thence TO San Fran
cisco"
Merchants say that this is an "impossi-
bie" explanation OF the bill as there IS no
business that way and so lar as IS known
no proposition to put steamers on the line
from New York 10 San Francisco via Euro
pean ports.
Moreover they Insist that there is no ne
cessity for such move as frelghis are pro-
ceeding from New York around Cape Horn
without interruption IA clipper vessels. IN
The past freights were shipped BY steamer
to Europe and then placed on clippers Tor
this port. and this was mainly 10 avoid the
extOTtionate rates made by the conspiracy
between the railroad and the racine Mall
SiaCe there is 40 trade such as that re-
farred 70 In Senator Frye's explanation"
tile merchants look for another solution or
his bill and find IN ii a secret attack upon
the new North American Navigation CON-
Ianv.
They say 1t Is easy TO see that a law which
would apply TO shipments 10 San Francisco
via Europe from New York would apply TO
shipments through other foreign Countries
Mexico and Colombia, for Instance.
Another argument OF the merchants is
that the Tehuantepec route will soon be
omen. but II {. p. Huntington and his allies
succeed ID capturing and controlling all the
American steamers 10 operation to keep
them out OF the trade, merchants here VIII,
they say, be forced ont of the use Of the sea
aud be obliged to give Mr.. Huntington his
own rates
II the FRYE bill passes then applications
gatd.ng steamers for shipping via foreign
ports would be referred by the Secretary Of
The Treasury to Congress. At present the
responsibility is on the Secretary OF the
Treasury.
Judge Ross Of the United States District
Court IN the Southern district OF California
found that there IS no law against such ship
ments as are threatened by this bill
4 few extracts from his decision On the
subject are subjoined:
There IS 10 prohibition in Ihe law against The
expectation or return OF articles on the free list
by Tore gn vessels. Ii Is nOtou0usiy lie TACT
That almost al OF the wheat sent from California
goes 10 ba Is By foreign vessels, which again fnd
their Way back 10 some porl or tie UnlIed States.
The fact Of the expectation OF the bags clunOt be
denied. nor Of The owners Intention IN many
cases 10 have them returned. Tobacco. under
this section, and whisky. under the ACT OF July
3, 1866. may be sent from this country and
brought back, provided they he properly STAMPED
on IeImpoItatloD. Shall x be understood that
Ltue OF these privileges are available 10 Inc eIJl-
Zel unless he sends his goods fIOm the COuuuy
aud returns them 10 Il by an American vessel?
Such a requirement IS mol mentioned. il GER
taiuly VIII not be presumed. and II is absurd 10
say, that such voyages are from one port OF the
uIted states 20 another port therein.
II ibis conclusion be fairly reached. then it
follows THAT tie voyage OF one ship from New
York 10 ANTWERP ., and OF another from Antwerp
10 New York. though they unite 10 forming Tie
means whereby transportation IS finally OBJ
tanned Tor merchandise which has LIT New
York and seeks 10 Tt ach san Francisco, is not q
transportation Of merchandise from on port Of
tie United States TO another port therein. The
contract OF tbs Belgian ship terminated al Ant
wefp. foreign DOTt. Tie British ship, without
any connection with the Belgian vessel under
TOOK d different contract which resulted In the
return Of The goods from Antwerp TO The Untled
States.
TIE United States cannot be heard 10 say that
. mi ii11y - z a ara IN
fact as extensive as theiJ language would indf-
cate. nor VIII lie court understand when the
statute s. eas s OF articles (which have been eX
ported" that the articles must have been sent 10
a foreign market for safe, OF TO become part of
tie common stock OF the country, and thai the
privilege Of return 10 The United States must de-
pend on an effort first having been made in good
faith 10 tie foreign country 70 effect tuelr sale.
Tie law imposes no conditions whatever other
Than TIE existence Of tRe fact that they had
been exported. taken out OF the country. and
that, without having been advanced In value,
their return IS sought. 1he word imports" as
used IN the constitution, rs Defined both on the
authority OF the leKic0ns aud of usage 10 be
articles Brought into the country"
Here is another extract from the same
decision:
The clause OF the Mckinley bill under cousid-
GRAFTON speaks OF The expectation OF
tie goods. and OF their subsequent return. not
importation. Inc end sought by tie
RESPONDENT. that is the Importation into San
francisco OF American made goods which had
been shipped at New York was absolutely law
ful. There Is no requirement OF the law COM
pelllug ther direct sbii meHt from New YORK TO
San francisco. Now, If the merchant
prefers 10 send his goods TO a foreign country
aud pay duties there, and subsequently, Import
Them into the Unit c States and pay duties here,
shall he not be allowed 10 10 so? II is his way
Of doing business. He may find a profit 10 Ii.
II lie does not the Government does not make
Itself bis guardian and punish him unti he SHALL
reform MS methods. II lets him alone II then
Il Is The merchants right 20 make his shipments
By d roundabout and expensive way which eK-
poses bis goods to burthensOme duties In the
foreign country and this country the right Is
not changed BY the fact that neither The foreign
country nor this country Will insist on the duties
OF That The cost OF transportation, strange as II
may seem, snail prove far less 10 making two
foreign voyages than 10 making one coastwise
afc