Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-07-24
No F[AR OF N|LL[RS
Henderson's Friends Do Not Re.
gard the Attack With Much
Seriousness.
They Will Give 1t Little Atten-
tion-Cause OF the Millers'
Opposition.
History OF the Measure Which
1t Is Claimed Was
Held Up.

| Washington, July a4.-The reported
threat from Minneapolis that an organ
ization of mllers will defeat Congress-
man Henderson's recollection because
their bill to suppress the London dock
charge in steamship bills of lading did
not come to vote last session, does
not create much interest in Washing
ton.
This bill was introduced by Senator
Nelson OF Minnesota, passed the senate
and WAS favorably reported by the ma
jority of the house committee on inter-
state and foreign commerce, but Il
strong minority report Was made
against it, signed by Hepburn, chair
man of the committee, Sherman OF New
York, Adamson of Georgia, and Tomp-
kins of Ohio. Like a great many other
measures on the calender, it failed of
being taken UP, and it is assumed here
that the speaker followed Congress
man Hepburn's advice in not giving 1T
special recognition.
The bill will come up at the Decem-
Der session in its regular order on the
call of committees, and has. therefore,
lost no rights and been subjected TO no
unfriendly discrimination. Its friends
simply failed in their efforts to have 1T
given preference.
The object of the bill is to prevent
the practice in vogue since 1888 by a
combination. including all important
Atlantic steamship companies. of re-
,j,iy,t oh AN. In
in London in addition to and distinct
from the regular freight charges. Mill
lers and other exporters claim that they
can get no commodities accepted by
trans portation lines unless they agree
to Il bill of ading which contains this
so-called London dock charge which
they say the steamship companies
should pay. They say that the English
laws contemplate that London shall be
a free port and that this clause is a
method of evading the law and, fur
thermore. that as 1t is not contained in
bills of lading from other parts of the
world it amounts to a discrimination
against the producers of the United
States.
1t is shown that the laws which con-
template that London shall be free
port are old statutes. passed when III
was the custom to discharge cargoes
outside into barges, "a method imprac-
ticable under the conditions of modern
commerce, and with the great ships
which sail between London and the
United States. Docks are imperatiNely
required. are owned by private corpor-
ations, and cargoes must be stored
there for a time under shelter and
charges must be paid.
The steamship companies say that If
they are required to pay these dock
charges they will be obliged TO recoup
themselves by introducing freight
charges, and as congress has no power
to regulate ocean freight rates it looks
as tho the steamship companies would
have the last word even if the bill
should become a law.
The bill was not seriously opposed in
the senate, probably because the men
who might have fought 1T We're inter-
ested in getting Senator Nelson's sup
port for the ship subsidy bill, and did
not care to antagoniZe the bill. 1t
passed without a roll call. and there
was a general feeling that it would be
legislation.