The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-09-17
MILLERS ARE FIRM
Will Not Yield Point in Their
Fight Against London Land
ing Clause.
Conference at Chicago Decides to
Await Action on Port of
London Bill.

Inc conference held this week IN chi
cago under auspices of the Millers' Ma
tional Federation for consideration of the
London landing clause was we'll attended.
Representative the steamship interests
We're Messrs. BEETLE, Franklin, Taylor,
Lawrence Robertson and Sickel. Mr..
] Pillman represented the London Flour
Trade association, and Mr.. Bovey and Mr..
Bronson the millers. Others present We're
Mr.. Henry. of the Lehigh Valley, Mr..
| German, traffic director of the Corn Prod
ucts company, Mr.. Bradley, traffic man
ager of the Millers National Federation,
| Mr.. Edgar, editor Northwestern Miller,
Mr.. Kennedy, secretary Of the Millers' Ma
! tional Federation, and Mr.. Eckhart, its
president, who occupied the chair.
| Mr.. Franklin said that the steamship
men came in spirit Of fairness. They
regretted the differences arising from the
| London clause. He urged that, owing to
failure to agree on many points the mill
ers appoint competent traffic man to GO
to London and to investigate. II his re-
port showed any better way of landing
merchandise the steamship companies
would gladly adopt it.
Mr.. Pillman said so far as his interests
were concerned there would be no COM
promise. The London landing clause had
been originated and sustained by mis-
representation. It was in return for nc
service. The clause allowed the shil
49,
that which he should properly do himself
He had no hesitation in saying that con-
signees could get flour as well without the
clause.
| G. G. Bovey, Of Minneapolis, said thai
he saw no reason why the clause shoulc
not be eliminated; the amount necessary
to cover the expense Of landing the good:
included in the rate of freight and the
steamship owner satisfy the dock com
panies without insisting upon the retention
of the clause.
Mr.. Franklin explained why this wa:
impossible and contended that it would
abrogate their contracts with the docks
throw open the whole question, with thu
result that all concerned shipper, car
rier and receiver would be damaged to {
very great extent.
w G. Edgar brought up the Port O
London bill and Mr.. Pillman said that thu
bill had in contemplation a single port au
thority made up of representation from
the shipping interest, the port interest
the merchants of london and the govern
ment It appeared that this bill was ia
vored by both ship owners and conSign
ees and that it contemplated the takin,
over of the docks by the port authority
If this happened it would follow in al
probability that the matter Of charge
for unloading cargo would be fixed b,
port charge made by the port authority
Such charge would of course be cOmpul
sorry, and such an arrangement woul
| make it possible for the steamships to civ
r a bill of lading without the landing clause
Inasmuch as no agreement could b
reached resolutions were offered as tn
sense Of the meeting. Mr.. Pillman di
not subscrib, but will submit them to hi
association. The resolutions:
Resolved That it is the concensus of opinio
Of this conference that the following is the sit
, nation regarding the london landing clause:
\ Ip,f- C1,otf Tho csrpo ur1 nf ~
5 monetary value to them; wrong in principle an
consider that it should be abrogated entirely.
Second--Tht the teamship' interests conside
it the only practicable method now open to In
sure the prompt handling and delivery Of cargoe
5 in London and that its abrogation is practice
f inpossilility under existing circumstances
Third-That the millers are fully in sympa
thy with the contention of their consignees
London, and believe that they should not be
party to contract which abrogates any right
! of the receiver.
Whereas bill is now before parliamen,
/ known as the Port Of London bill, which conten
plates the placing Of all the docks under the col
troll Of a single port authority, and this al
thority will doubtless fix regular statutor
charge for the receiving, handling and deliver
Therefore, it is the opinion of this conference
$ that without yielding the point Of view Of an
, Of the intrests concerned, it would be advisabl
= to await the action of parliament In this matte
: before attempting to do anything further in tn
promises, owing to the opposing character Of til
r interests concerned and the apparent deadloc
f 1t is understood that the steamship interest
agree, in the event Of the port authority fxin
n statutory charge for the receiving, handlin
: and delivery of goods, that they will thereupt
:, issue a bill Of lading to the American shippt
n which will eliminate the London landing claus
v and any other charge other than the statutol
n charge of the port of London.
g 1t is further agreed that If parliament do,
not within the period of one year from dat
g enact the contemplated bill, then, and in tn,
: event, another conference will be held with IL
It intention Of appointing proper committee re
resenting the various interests concerned who
"a duty is shall be to erdeavor to produce bill
= lading which shall be satisfactory to all inte
. ests.