The Saint Paul globe., 1905-01-30

OCutfiluCQ l. IL ~ e'e3C
This, of course, applies to fours as well
as to other manufactures
Thus far there is no conflict of opin-
ion. The only ambiguity is in reference
to drawback on the expectation OF ar
ticles produced in part from imported and
in part from domestic material when the
amount of imported material does not~so
appear to the eye in the completed article
that the quantity or measure thereof can
be ascertained You will see that it is i'm
portant to understand the issue involved
in order to understand either the argu-
ment in support of the request or the ef-
feet of granting the same.
1t is conceded, of course, that the
amount of imported wheat used in the
manufacture of a barrel of flour does not
appear to the eye. In an analogous case
Attorney General Olney held that the
used must appear to the eye. in the COM
pleted article to entitle it to a drawback.
This opinion was overruled, however, by
Attorney General Griggs, who, in an an
aiogous case, held that if the amount of
imported material was aseertainable in
any other way than by the exercise of the
sense of sight the drawback could be
allowed. In his opinion the requirement
was met If the amount of imported ma
terial used was made to appear to the
knowledge and understanding of the per-
son charged with the responsibility of. de-
Gliding.
Opinion Was overruled
This opinion, I repeat, overFuled the
opinion of Attorney General Olney, and is
as binding upon the secretary of the treas
ury as though the Olney opinion had never
been rendered. 1t does not leave the sec
retary of the treasury in the position of
having two opinions with a discretion as
to which one he shall follow.
But, antagonistic opinions having been
rendered, and there being some opposition
to the request, I have taken occasion
again to submit the question to the at
torney general doubt not your body
will approve this course. The treasury de-
partment, in the execution of the laws.
Is controlled by the opinion of the attor-
ney general, and his opinion is the de-
partments court of last resort.
Having explained what has been done
would be authorized to dismiss the sub
ject, but notice in the resolution the ex-
pressed opinion that 1.-The granting of the
application will practically nullify para
graph 234 of the Dingley law" Evident
ly Mr.. Dingley was-not of this opinion,
for the two provisions are In the same
BILL But If you are correct, and if section
80 nullifies any portion of the act of which
it is a part, then the remedy is with
the congress and not with the administra-
tive branch of the government.
The provisions of law under considera-
ton first appear in the Mckinley tariff act
of 1890. In his speech explaining what
was intended, after referring to the right
Of drawback previously granted on articles
produced wholly OF foreign material, Mr.
Mckinley uses this language:
I'VE have extended this provision and
in every way possible libefaiized II so thai
the domestic and foreign product can be
combined and still allow the exporter 90
per cent upon the duty he pays upon his
foreign material intended for export.
which is In effect what free traders and
our political opponents are clamoring for.