Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-04-25
ANOTHER LETTER
FROM HANsBROUGH
HE TAKES ANOTHER TURN AT
SECRETARY SHAW ON THE
DRAWBACK PROPOSITION.
IN ONE CLAUSE OF
A STATUTE NOT TAKEN AWAY
BY ANOTHER CLAUSE.

r sl.4 5spr :,
f'-.. =. ----------- 5s2
Washington special to Minneapolis
Journal of the oath inst: Senator
after some thought, de-
cided that he would write another let
ter to Secretary Shaw on the subject
of wheat drawbacks, copy OF which
was given to the New York Tribune,
and published in that paper this morn
ing. The North Dakota senator's last
contribution to this series Of letters is
dated April 20, and is in answer to the
Secretary's letter of the 14th inst,
which was made public last Monday
morning. 1t is as follows:
My Dear Mr.. Secretary: In re-
spouse to your letter of the 14th, let
me remind you that the law lays a
specific duty upon wheat. For what
purpose was the duty imposed? First,
protection for the American grain
grower; second, for revenue with
which to pay governmental expenses.
Who are the chief importers of wheat?
The manufacturers of flour are practi-
cally the sole importers. Occasional
ly an American farmer buys a few
bushels of Canadian wheat for seed;
and, while he pays duty of 25 cents
a bushel, the miller, under most
violent executive construction of the
statute, pays one-quarter of 1 per cent
a bushel
Shaw's "cheerful Policy"
According to the cheerful policy of
your department the miller it to certi-
fly that he uses the imported wheat in
his export flour. You do not, nor can
you know whether he does so or not
Indeed, in an interview Of date Feb.
18th, just before Mr.. Moody's opinion
was given, you are quoted as saying:
GAS long as a given amount of wheat
is imported and a given amount of
-four is exported that ought to be
enough" The law says that the "im-
ported material shall so appear in the
completed article that the quantity or
measure thereof may be ascertained."
1t may be that you were not quoted
correctly; yet you have not denied tle
interview. Then came your decision,
prior to which all importers of wheat
paid the statutory duty, and subse'
quent to which the duty is related to
the miller. Hence by statement that
your department is engaged in a fan
tastic and unconstitutional scheme of
tariff revision.
But there is an ethical side to this
drawback question. After reading
your recent views, 1 am convinced that
every true friend of our protective
tariff system must conclude that the
purposes for which the law is being
used could have had no conception in
the minds of those who framed it.
Senators and members who actively
participated in the enactment Of the
law assure me of the correctness Of
this statement.
No Place for Statement.
There is no place in economic dis
cussion for the absurd argument that
the protection given in one clause of
statute is to be taken away by another
clause of the same statute. No Ameri.
can congress ever passed law that
would justify this construction. Such
a thing is out of all harmony with rea-
son or common sense. Craftsmanship
is not based upon the code of the thin.
ble-rigger. Ledger-demain in lawmak.
ing or in law constituting has ever been
most reprehensible prac.
tice Surely our protective system
was not intended to be thus perverted.
1t was designed to encourage every
branch of industrial enterprise the
farmer, the miner, the manufacturer;
those of our citizens who are engaged
in producing raw materials, as well as
those who are turning out the finished
product. If We deliberately sacrifice
one branch to build up another, the
institution through whose instru-
mentality the injustice Is inflicted
must fall into disrepute. There is q
remedy for every wrong, although for
a time patient meekness may take
injuries like pills. Yet If, as very
much fear. q wrong has been commit.
ted here the way will surely be found
to rectify It. Very truly yous.
II. G. Hansbrough.