New-York tribune., 1905-04-17
FIGHT ON DRAW ACkS.
Sha1c and Hansbrough Firing Let
ters at Each Other.
LFRoM TIE TRIBUNE BuREAU.l


interview in The Tribune. Their letters are pub
nshed with the consent Of the respective authors
replying 70 Senator Hansorough's letter puoished
IN The Tribune of April IA, Secretary Shaw wrote
the Senator as follows:
II Is true that the concluding paragraph in A.
tSy ttSGrney General Moodys opinion was not m sne
Grggs opinion Of the preceding paragraphs Of the
not a A ts me ydeIss s5Sses S 'nas e Books @ Of
aGc3gnts Of the manufacturers is alone suttcient
right of the manufacturer TO drawback OF course.
ne does not determine that question. neither did
either to Mr.. Griggs or to Mr.. Moody. Mr. Moody
opinion on the subject the fact that the nature
OF the evidence disclosed by them the books Is
the opinion in which it is Contained ana the opin-
ion Of Mr. Griggs:f ''The amount and character
Of the evidence which should be required by you
books had been before the Attorney General he
would have concluded, as all men must conclude
controvertble. But suppose Mr.. Moody erred IN
did and suppose the customs oficiais are deceived
by the books still there is no fantastic and un,
There is one other phase Of your letter that I
back had been denied, then the manufacturer
mistaken. II l were to certify that the evidence nee
was conclusive but that reIuseq 70 aliSW 9iS t rn9
permit it, Notwithstanding the Moody opinion. the
in the absence Of such a finding he would have no
standing in court Certainly the manufacturer
Of the amount of foreign wheat consumed in the
Mr Moody SAYS the determination Of this fact
rests with customs officials On the contrary. any
the law does not permit it, ANY citizen has suf-
fcient interest IN the reyepues OF the country 10
Without wishing to prolong the discussion. for
claim for myself and / also recognize the usual
futility of attempt to change any mans opinion
phase Of the case which cannot understand;
wise men can oppose the right to manufacture in
bond for export Second l can understand WY
laws. even when the exported article is produced
wholly from imported material Ihlrd can can tno tLo
allowance Of drawback goods produced IN Part
however S 8Gep apparent @ to the the eye the amount Of in
ported material may be- But cannot ln1eIstsnSS 1 S
not favor them all. If / understand your position
back neTe o hour no pTodaced Wholly from Canadian
wheat. but you stsenuoUsly object 20 the alo~S5
in part from imported wheat, In other words.
seTestg t of the North Dakota wheat grower allow
the miller to import four bushels OF WnedI pdy,us
cents of which to be refunded on the expectation
of barrel Of -four produced from tneSe Iof6 f6
the wheat grower to allow the miller to import pt
into the Treasury forty-nine and cnehalf cents OF
which can be refunded on the expectation o. 2
Of wheat and two bushels Of North Dakota %nea, eat
You do this In the face OF tne Iatt Wh noTr
must admit. that the miller cannot eHpOIt HUn ,oI
made wholly from American wheat Tor, as YT XOu
wheat in competition with the product OF eighty
cent wheat grown in Canada II ttt nave Iny bsIief
in the law. interpreted by attorneys SfIeI en- IA
opi5ion it furnishes an outlet for moiety Of
American wheat and keeps American @ d D1dii can m
nTe vi Wpon % the major premise that in the absence
of the drawback law AmerSSn am ronean market il
seems to me the balance of the Sontenuon Is SS,
aTs op the %nSs export trade Should with YOU
in every effort to compel them 10 % use thaf they
cannot use American wheat. and therefore, i9HS1
retire from the export 1usiITSS ~ Of sericuiturai
lands I favor that provision Of the law which. Icn
fo1 Of ne merean wheat and American
brands Of -four on the EurUPg T1Psrcan farmer quite
as much as OF the American l"''i l. NJ SHAW.
Under date Of April Is Senator Hansorousn re-
| piled to the Secretary in the following 'e''e''
Your assertion that the American miI!er I
must retire from the export business unless Ca
madam wheat is used is at var1SncS VIZ. en- aieTSar
Year preceding your decision peTmittng tn9 m R1I f
ing of Canadian wheat Win oTt the American mill
ers sold and shipped to foreign f nsTIS, 0S
S00 bushels of wheat For the same & period our I'M I'M
poTtaIon5I OF OF iess than 5000 barrels OF flour.
fSink these figures eectually dispose Of your
tba9 sn6 moTe fully considered the facts shall
expect you to keep ~ yoIbr tbe american grain grower
If the mers' association have been gwen +Sf S1f
wheat blending privilege uECL retire Fro1,, the
x1nTf MtInUl busness then the Treasury Department
s6Su, sIS cnnensiveIv that the American miller can
End does "export flour made wholly from American
WhGa5t 5 1ent apG of about Ii 10000 barrels over and
Wheat Wheat WAS Selling at 81 bushel at the elevators
No doubt the miIlers profits would De greateTT II
he could buy his wheat at 50 Genus ousnei @ t Sg 1
nadan price and this is what he IS now DONG un1
~ %nrr - decision Very naturally the effect Will
be to depress the price OF doesT treI oodS 70 he
sold IN competition with domestic manufactured
Goods - would depress the price of the id+ter The
eI nrefers so cent wheat 81 what, the Nui lily
W6en YOU have made a closer study OF the case
Won will perceive that the operation or system OF
wheat importatons under your oeCSlOn - dltVV-
iiIleit, to happen under Section lS which permits
grinding in bond, and the frsS paragraph o1 SeS
on articles made wholly OF imported materials. t @
Good and wise men VIII nne no @ Terayds the
volume of imports under your decision, Wnereas
they have but to examine te section IL and the
first paragraph of Section 80 nave DSen HsisIniIs5-
cant, amounting to only %o'Sol OushelS III ''V''
While tho Mckinley bill was being framed GER
tain manufacturers sought to have the drawback
section extended so as to permit the blending Of
foreign and domestic materials TO the nInds OF
raised new and important question. HOW could
the mixing process be pTovtaeo iOI "1tnSyI gSr I'M
Gals themselves pointed to the danger in such a
the adoption of the following proviso:
mart from domestic materials. the imported ma
terials or the parfS % OF tine arGeS G m
articles that the quantity or measure thcre". iLay
That was in 1880 In December, 1884 an American
smelling company applied TO your dePaEtmSent RI S toE
the privilege of importing lead ores TO be blended
with American ores. The then Secretary OF the
Treasury sent the matter to Attorney General OIL
ney, who. referring specihcaIy to the proviso
quoted above, gave this opinion:
You assume that the proylSo forolds the allow