Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-04-18

sisMARci< DAILY Ta!suNx i!
have gone to the courts for judicial
Interpretation Of the law. Your de-
partment having granted the millers'
application, thus waving the right Of
the government to retain the wheat
duty in the treasury, the grain grower
became powerless. He is practically
without remedy. He cannot get into
court without showing that he has
been directly injured, and a proceed
ing Of this kind is too expensive for
the average farmer. ~<
Again, you say that after the
Griggs opinion reversing Mr.. Olney,
Congress had ample opportunity to
amend the drawback law The
Griggs opinion was given after the
Dingley law had been enacted. There
has been no opportunity to amend the
law, for the reason that the house
managers have studiously- refused to
allow tariff measures Of any kind to
come before that body. @4
Since you have raised the question
Of congressional acqmscence, re-
spectfully request that you again ex.
anime your records, where ypu viii
find that your department was pro-
ceeding under the Olney opinion and
had so proceeded for almost four
years before the Dingley law was en-
acted. Did the trainers of the Ding.
ley law recast the drawback statute
on account of the Olney opinion?
Most assuredly they did not, for the
very good reason that they knew Mr..
Olney's interpretation of it to be the
correct onet-uhe Interpretation, In.
deed, which congress on two previous
occasdons-in 1890 and again in 1891
had intended the law should re-
ceive. And SO congress re.enac.ed
the drawback statute without the
change of word or a syllable in it,
thus giving pernanency, SO far as lay
in It's power, to the Olney opinion.
The only opportunity which congress
has had to become responsible for the
Griggs and Moody opinions was in
February last when the senate ex-
plicitly declared those opinions 10 tie
in contravention of the letter and
spirit Of the drawback law. - r
"Since this controversy arose an
eminent statesman, who was men,
Der of the senate when the Mckinley
bill, the Wilson.G German hill, and the
Dingley bill were enacted into law,
has written me as follows: e''t
II have read your spe sch on draw
backs on wheat. It Il AVS 3luteIy
sound. What we meant by so ap-
pear was that we could discover it
by seeing it or otherwise examining
for it, not ascertain by affidavit that
1T had gone there and became undis-
tinguishable and unasce1sainaDle. f.
my confidence in your AGILITY as
statesman is too firmly a. ID to admit
of the belief that you %ish to be IN
derstood as saying the interests of
few hundred American mil'ers are
paramount to the interests of several
millions of grain growers. regret
that this is the logical c,uclusion to
be drawn from your statement that
the American millers cannot pay
from Is to 20 cents per bushel more
for wheat and export the product in
competition with wheat ground in
Canada The government, my dear
Mr.. Secretary Is not unde' an impera-
tive obligation to keep few Ameri-
can mills going at full speed continu-
ously at the expense Of multitudes of
American producers of raw material.
Neither do l agree with you that the
price of American wheat has not
been prejudiced by the Moody deci-
SION (sic.) Although your decision,
under which the far-reaching blend
ing privilege is granted is but few
weeks old and it is therefore some
what early to judge of its tendency to
reflect upon current prices, it is
nevertheless true that the domestic
farm price of wheat is lower by
several cents per bushel than 1t was
when your rebate policy as to export
flour was entered upon.
Mrs. Hansbrough requests me to
thank you for your kind remembrance
OF her and to convey to Mrs. Shaw
and yourself here affectionate good
wishes, in which heartily join.
Very sincerely yours,
III. c. HANSBROUGH, (
"Hon. Leslie M. Shaw,
10 - ~. a..