The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-02-18
ebruary Il, 100

% ~ E Z
tincation shall take place, not when the article
is being manufactured, but when exported. 1t
Is only after the foreign material has become
a part OF an exported article that a drawback
can be obtained, and the Identification must be
in the article exported, as 1t exists nowhere else
when drawback is asked
The opinion of Mr.. Olney gives construction
to the language of this section that appears to
be reasonable, practical and consistent with the
history and purpose of this law, and it seems
to me it should have been adhered to until
congress saw fit to change it.
History of the Law.
This section and the proviso in question was
first enacted as part of the Mckinley tariff
act in 1890 It was re-enacted in 1894 and
1897. Mr.. Olney gave the opinion that have
referred to in the year 1894 His opinion was
then published in the Opinions Of Attorney Gen
erals When in 1897 congress passed the pres
ent Dingley tariff law 1t consulted with the
treasury officials as to the various schedules and
provisions of that law, and it then knew what
construction was placed upon this proyiso. With
this knowledge it wrote into the present law
this same section with this same proviso This
construction Of law continued in force until
1888, when Mr. Richards opinion was written
Where legislative body re-enacts statute with
rull knowledge Of such construction, it must be
presumed to have intended to retain such con-
struction as the expression of its will.
MIR. volstead's Argument.
understand it is now contended that william
Mckinley In presenting his bill to congress for
the tariff law that afterWard bore his name ex-
planned and construed this provision in accord
ance with Mr.. Richards views. 1 have read
the language referred to. In the first place this
language does not bear the construction claimed
Tor 1t, and In the next place, when this speech
vas made, the section in question was not in
the bill, and could not, for that reason, have
been referred to by Mr.. Mckinley. This section.
with the proviso, was offered at a much later
date as an amendment by the ways and means
committee. These facts appear from the report
and bill presented by Mr. Mckinley as chairman
OF the ways and means committee, and by the
Congressional Record Until this regulation Of
which I complained was announced few days
ago 1t had been considered by congress and the
country generally that the power now claimed
for making such regulation did not exist As
some evidence of that fact / need only refer to
the bills now pending In congress for the purpose
of authorizing the very thing which this con-
structton is said to authorize under the present
act. .
To the question of how it will AFFECT the mid
ole northwest shall not devote much time.
That section raises q spring wheat that contains
gluten essential to the highest grades of -four;
Canada to the north, produces this same class
of wheat. Further south the wheat produced is
of more starchy character The best results
are obtained by mixing higher grades of spring
wheat with the starchy wheat from the south
This southern section will for years to come have
a surplus for foreign export, while the wheat in
my section Is very largely used for domestic con-
sumption. This regulation will make it posi-.
Die to produce for EXPORT at the Minneapolis
Of the wheat raised in the vicinity Of Mipneapo-
lis. Southern wheat may be mixed with Cana
dian wheat and thus be absolutely eliminated
ene n necessity for using bushel of
will in all probability prove still more serious
handicap is that there will be way of detect
Ing fraud. 1t will become possible for the Min
neapolis mills to secure all the hard wheat thai
| they desire from Canada for the domestic trade
without paying any duty. All they have got tt
90 Is to secure and export the product of south
ern wheat in place Of it. For every barrel OF
flour made from this southern wheat and export
ed they can put upon the domestic market bar
rel Of -four made from Canadian wheat. NJ
regulation can be made under Richards rule,
, that would not make this possible. 1t might per
! haps be necessary to mix with the southern
, little northern wheat for export flour so as t,
avoid detection, but the bulk Of the -four from
this northern wheat can be left here with prac
tically no chance for detection. The highes
grades of this -four and the bran and byproduct
will have to be left here under any circumstance
) as the market for them is in this country, an,
l not in Europe. A little Of this -four may perhap
60 to the orient. Europe does not want thi
flour. 1t has mills like ours, and is biddin,
, for this glutinous wheat to mix with its owl
i wheat and the soft wheat from India Argentina
Russia and other countries. Nearly all of our ex
port -four is Of a low grade. The high-grad
-four the bran and other byproducts will hav
to come in competition with our own products t
? enable millers to avail themselves of this draw
, back privilege. It is in view of these fact
I that I am strongly opposed to this regulation
1 Line farmers nave Tor years SLeauraStly support
ed the doctrine of protection. Without this sup
s port the country would be hopelessly democratic
4 They certainly have as high claim upon thi
t administration for considerate treatment as an
miller Kansas City smeter. They have gen
q erously given protection to others and they as
that the protection to which they are entttle
s under the law be fairly given to them: Ur
less protection is accorded equally to all it is
s policy entitled to all the damnation lavish
o bestowed upon it by militant democracy. W
Z ask only fair play and we should not be con
e PEELED to plead for that. A. ]. Volstead.