Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-04-18
etter, and saying, in part:

letter, and saying, In part: 7
ut is a matter Of regret to me that
you and are no nearer an agreement
ON this question: than we were last fall,
some months before Attorney General
Moody gave his opinion. just here let
me suggest that while Mr.. Moody, err
ronenusly as many good lawyers, fol-
lowed the line Of argument assumed by
Mr.. Griggs In an analogous case, when
the latter reversed the opinion of Mr..
Olney. the present attorney generals
written opinion was decidedly modified
by it's concluding paragraph which is
as follows:
Il do not wish to be understood as
expressing the opinion that the evil
dence of books of account of the manu-
facturers 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 evi.
dence discaoseddby them Is not before
me. The amount and character OF the
evidence which should be required by
you Is Within your administrative dis.
erection. ....&
80 that it would seem that Mr..
Moody's opinion was not mandatory
upon your department. He left it for
you to say whether, In the case Of -four
supporting to be manufactured in part
from foreign and In part from domestic
wheat, you could ascertain by xeami.
nation OF the completed article the
quantity Of imported material used In
the article. Mr. Mpody,s final cpnclus-
ION Is that the amount and character
Of the evidence which should be re.
CURED by you Is Within your admins.
trative discretion.
"Since our first conference ON this
question last November 1 have never
swerVeds nor do now swerve, from
the opinion then expressed, that it is
utterly impossible for you or any one
else to ascertain by an examination of
the completed article what proportion
of a barrel Of -four is made from Cam
adian wheat and what proportion from
North Dakota wheat, and unless this
can be done the law expressly forbdds
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. so clearly and logically con.
strued by Mr.. Olney in denying the
privilege to the lead shelters.
"Thds contention was strongly sup
ported in the debate in the senate,
February IA, last, and by the vote of
the senate itself, when, on that date,
1t agreed to an amendment offered by
me to the Agricultural appropriation
bill, setting aside your decision. In
passing upon the matter, the house did
not consider the amendment upon its
merits, but proceeded upon the techni.
cal and distinct theory that the house
alone has the right to originate rev.
enue legislation. There is still further
evidence Of the manifest intent of con-
gress as respects the drawback law In
several bills introduced in the house,
notably the Lowering bill, which pro
Vfded for the -four blending privilege
This measure was before. the house
and was being urged by its author
when your decision as to wheat was
promulgated. After that, no further
effort in behalf Of the bill appears to
have been made.
And this brings me to the part of
your letter touching my contention
tihat your decision was in furtherance
OF a fantastic and unconstitutional
scheme of tariff revision by application
OF the drawback law The law itself
as not unconstitutional, but there can
be no doubt, think, that the new and
wrongful construction of the law
whereby the statute Is clearly diverted
from its original purpose by an execu.
tive officer us an invasion Of legisla-
tive prerogatdve amounting in this in
stance to unconstitutional tariff re-
| vision. ~. T.. 5a.,-. 2,e.l.z
Had you denied the application, as
did the secretary in the original lead
ore case, the MiIlers' Association could