Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-05-08
as@p
THE DRAWBACK QUESTION.

THE DRAWBACK QUESTION.
In another column today appears the
last letter of Senator Hansbrough to
Secretary Of the Treasury Shaw upon
the question of drawbacks. This con-
troversy between the North Dakota
senator and the secretary of the treas
ury has been in progress for some
time and, as Senator Hansbrough
points out, it has been sort of cam
paign of education. The North Dako-
ia senator, in the opinion of the Tri-
bune, is in the right so far as this con-
troversy is concerned and his stand
in the matter has been in the interest
of the American wheat grower.
The Washington Post, conserva-
tive journal, is interested enough in
this argument between the senator
and the secretary, to devote consider
able space to discussion of the mat
ter and in a recent issue has this to
say Of the matter:
Secretary Shaw and Senator Hans
brough have not been able to COM
pose their disagreement about the tariff
on wheat and the regulation of the
treasury department permitting a re-
bate on foreign wheat ground by
American mills for export The Sec
rotary, with just a suspicion of asperi-
ty in the style of his composition,
makes this remark in his last COM
munication to the senator: 81 had
hoped ere this you would explain in
what manner you think the American
producer of wheat can be injured by
permitting foreign wheat to be ground
on American soil, so long as neither
the foreign wheat nor the flour pro-
duced therefrom enters the American
market for consumption"
Possibly the secretary has forgotten.
Early in the debate the senator as
serted that every bushel of foreign
wheat ground in American mills dis
placed a bushel of American wheat,
and that the mills ground the foreign
wheat because, under the construc-
ton of the treasury department, it
was cheaper than domestic wheat and
tended to lower the price of American
wheat in American markets.
But there is another question that
both the secretary and the senator
seem to regard as unimportant, if not
impairment, and that is, Where does
the American consumer of wheat
come in? We see where the foreign
consumer Of American -four comes in,
He gets cheaper bread. Under this
ruling the American miller is supplied
with cheap wheat to make flour for
the foreign workingman, but he must
grind dear wheat to make flour for the
American workingman. It was con
tended by many eminent protection
lists, from Hamilton to Clay and from
Clay to Mckinley, that the tariff is TO,
the protection and benefit of American
labor; but here is an instance where
1t is for the advantage Of the foreign
laborer who consumes American flou]
and, it may be, produces an article tina
completes with the products of Ameri
can labor in neutral markets.
The secretary does not say that b,
his ruling the American wheat grower
is benefited; he merely contends thai
he is not injured. He is silent as tt
the American consumer, and so is the
senator. We are told that it is oul,
their surplus that our manufacturers
send abroad and sell for less thar
they charge American consumers 70,
the same goods. When Goldsmith
then the best heart that pulsated in &
human bosom, remarked one evenin.
at the club he helped DR.. johnson
make famous, that he had ceased tt
practice medicine, and only prescribed
for his friends, Beauclerk answered
I pray you, doctor, reverse your Gus
tom and prescribe only for you,
enemies" r. 49,
It might be a good thing if oul
manufacturers took lesson from
Beauclerk-let them reverse theil
practice and send their high-pricet
general product abroad for foreigners
and keep at home their cheap surplu.
Tor the advantage OF American con
sumers.
-------- --------