The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-02-18
Washington, d. c., Feb. 10, 100;

Washington, d. G., Feb. 10, 1905.
Hon. Leslie NJ. Shaw. Secretary ,..-
Dear Sir: The law under which 1t Is claimed
that drawback regulation wheat can be
made is contained in section 80 of the Dingley
tariff act. 1t provides for rebate Of duty on
two classes Of foreign exports: First, the class
of articles produced entirely from foreign mate
rial; second, on articles produced in part from
foreign and in part from domestic material. IN
my judgment drawback can properly be al
lowed under this law upon all articles manufac-
tured entirely from foreign products but l
insist that this law does not allow drawback
upon article made in part of foreign and in
part of domestic materials, whereas, in nour, the
different materials cannot be distinguished and
identified in the completed article.
Stripped of the language not material to this
question, the section provides that there shall be
to the duty paid on the material used, less ETC.,
provided that II the article is made in part of
foreign and in part Of domestic material the for
eign material shall SO appear in the completed
hcle that the quantity measure thereof may
be ascertained. And provided further, that
the imported material used in the production of
an article when exported shall be identified; the
quantity of such material used and the amount
of duty paid thereon shall be ascertained.
Attorney General Olney held that under the
first provision of this section it is necessary in
order to secure a drawback, that the foreign ele
ment in an article made in part from domestic
material must be capable of being distinguished
| from domestic element and identified in the ex
ported article to such extent that the quantity
certained therein without reference to past books
of account. This opinion was afterwards over
| ruled by Solicitor General Richards, who helt
| that no Identification of the foreign material il
the exported article Is necessary.
Mr.. Richards states reason for reversing
, the opinion Of Attorney General Olney that Ger
tain Kansas City smelling and refining compan,
had in some way been lead to believe that certail
drawbacks not permitted under the Olney opin
ion, would be allowed, and that as consequence
It would be unjust to deny the drawback, as larg
sums Of money had been invested the faitl
of such promise. This confession that the un
authorized promise Of someone seri
ously considered this question shows clearl,
that this was not an unbiased opinion.
do not believe that any fair and unbase
leading of this statute and its history will lea
a person to conclude that the congress intende
to grant rebates in all cases. When the origi
nal Mckinley tariff bill reported it did con
tain section that would have allowed rebat
upon all foreign aterial in any article export
ed, but later this committee asked to amend thi
section and introduced in its place the sectio
in question which has been re-enacted and re
tanned in all subsequent tariff legislations. tn
essential difference between this original sect1o
Of the Mckinley bill and the section so offere
as amendment was the addition of this frs
provisO.