New-York tribune., 1905-04-14
WHEAT DRAWBACK VIEWS
Correspondence Betsreen Secretary
ShGSO and Senator HansbrOugh.
Irao., z..n znEnuNs nuREau.l

EFROss zTn TRIBUNE BuRERU.l
Washington, April 13.-The first two instal-
nenfs OF Secretary Shaw's ana Senator Hans
hrough's rapid Gre correspondence on the wheat
drawback have been furnished 90 The Tribune
Cor publication. with the consent OF both the
parties thereto. as a result of the Secretary's
snterview IN yesterdays Tribune.
Under date OF April & the Secretary wrote Sem
ntor Eansbrough calling his attention 20 the
interview IN The Tribune and saying;
OF course know without being told that you
were improperly quoted, but whether it is worth
while for you 70 deny am not prepared TO say.
] do not care anything about Il lf you DO not.
While on the face OF the interview II seems TO
do me injustice, ] think il. in fact, does you
far greater injustice.
The interview quotes you as stating; Secre-
tary Shaw. in furtheEance OF hts fantastic and
unconstitutional scheme OF tariff revision by
application OF the drawback law, permitted the
millers 20 bring in wheat from abroad" etc. AS
/ have already said / know you did not speak
Of the drawback law as unconstitutional. nor or
Secretary Shaw's scheme OF tar1n revision. aou
have never complained 20 me OF the uncopstitu-
fionality Of the drawback law, nor OF its apph-
cation 20 -four made wholly from Canadian
wheat ~ you nae oeen MTltlIs , an lnIstslen ~
am certain you would have called attentlon 20
the fact that under the Griggs opinion the
millers were entitled 10 drawback on hour come
posed IN part or Canadian ana IN part or AInetl-
can wheat, but that TO avoid any doubt sub
mitted the question 10 the Attorney General
The fact that believe both in the wisdom Of the
law and in the correctness of the Interpretation
OF Attorney General Griggs and Attorney Gem
eral Moody does not make the scheme mine
The scheme was McKinley's. though the draw
back law is almost old as the tariff law.
After the Griggs opinion Congress had ample
opportunity 10 amend the drawback law, but
Il did not. and, therefore. by acquiescence, Con-
gress becomes responsible for the Griggs ana
Moody opinions
I do not suppose the interview will attract
much attention. but thought would bring it
10 your notice, and you can do as YOU think best
sl,out 6enViug II Whoever wrote the interview
els rr~FNu in hfG logic 4a
fact is that miers can get all the wheat they
want in the United States if they will pay the
price. They prefer the Canadian wheat because
il is from l5 TO % cents a bushel cheaper. No
mention is made OF the fact which / think is
apparent, that American milers cannot pay 10
or 20 cents bushel more for wheat and exc
port the product in competition with wheat
ground IN Canada or exported direct from Cam
ada / think told you at one interview We had
that Treasury expert (former bank examiner
discovered from the books Of the Minneapolis
mills that they we're making only five cents a
barrel on -four II takes a little over four bush
els Of wheat to make barrel of -four and, OF
course, 10 cents a bushel extra on wheat would
very soon exhaust the five cents profit on -four.
This is another reason why know you did not
write the interview.
presume you are gratihed, as am, that the
price OF American wheat has not been prejudiced
by the Moody decision by the enforcement OF
fhe law In harmony with the opinion Of the At
forncy General.
Wishing YOU very pleasant summer, and
with kind regards to Mrs. Hansbrough. re-
main very sincerely yours, /. NJ. SHAW.
Hon. II. c Hansbrough. United States Senate
IN reply. Senator Hansbrough wrote Secretary
Shaw under date OF April 6. acknowledging re-
ceipt OF the above letter and saying. in part:
It's a matter of regret 10 me that you and I
are nearer agreement this question
than we were last fall some months before At
toTney General Moody gave his opinion. Just
here, let me suggest that while Mr.. Moody er-
roneousy as many good lawyers believe. fol-
lowed the line of argument assumed by MF.
Griggs in an analogous case, when the latter
reversed the opinion OF Mr.. Olney. the present
Attorney Generals written opinion was decided
~ modified by its concluding paragraph which
IS follows:
Il do not wish to be understood as expressing
the opinion that the evidence Of books Of ac-
count Of the manufacturers is alone sufficient,
without the aid Of other evidence, TO establish
the right OF the manufacturer to the drawback.
express no opinion upon that subject, as the
nature OF the evidence disclosed by them is not
before me. The amount and character OF the
evidence which should be required by you is
within your administrative discretion"
So that il would seem that Mr.. MOody's opin-
Son was not mandatory upon your department.
He left X for you say whether, in the case
OF flour purporting 10 be manufactured in part
from foreign and in part from domestic wheat,
you could ascertain by examination Of the COM
pleted article the quantity Of imported ma
ter1al used in the article. Mr.. Moodys final
conclusion is that the amount and character of
the evidence which should be required by you is
within your administrative discretion
Since our first conference on this question last
November / have never sweryed nor do now
gwerve from the opinion then expressed, that It
Is utterly impossible for you any one else to
ascertain by an examination Of the completed
article what proportion OF barrel Of nour is
made from Canadian wheat and what proportion
from NorIh l1aEota Nheat, ana nh!ess TINS c Ei
be done the law expressly fOrbids the granting
Of the blending privilege and the payment Of
rebate That this was the intent Of Congress Is
shown by the positive language of the statute
itself, 50 clearly and logically construed by Mr..
Olney IN denying the privilege 10 the lead
smelters.
This contention was strongly supported in the
debate IN The Senate on February IA last and
by a vote Of the Senate itself. when on that
date il agreed TO amendment offered by me
70 the Agricultural Appropriation bill setting
sside your decision. IN passing upon the mat
ter the House did not consider the amendment
upon its merits. but proceeded upon the tech
Eical and distinct theory that the House alone
has the right to originate revenue legislation.
There is still further evidence of the manifest
intent OF Congress as respects the drawback
law in several bills introduced in the House,
notably The Lowering bill. which provided for
before the House and being urged by its
author when your decision as TO wheat was
promulgated. After that no further effort in
behalf Of the bill appears 10 have been made.
And this brings me TO the part Of your letter
touching my contention that your decision
in furtherance OF a fantastic and uncOnstitu-
the draw back law" The law itself is not
constitutional. but there can be no doubt
think that the new and wrongful construction
Of the law, whereby the statute IS clearly di-
Verted from its original purpose by an executive
officer, is invasion Of legislative prerogatiVe
amounting in this instance to unconstitutional
tariff revision.
Had you denied the application, as did the
Secretary in the original lead ore case, the
Miliers' Association could have gone TO the
courts for judicial Interpretation of the law.
Your department having granted the millers'
application. thus waving the right Of the gov
ernment 10 retain the wheat duty in the Treas
uTy, the grain grower became powerless. He IS
practically without remedy. He cannot get
fnf showing he ha