New-York tribune., 1905-02-03
WHEAT DRAWBACK LEGAL.
MILLERS YIN FIGHT
4tforney General Moody Sustains
Secretary Sha7c.
IFRoM THE TRIBUNE BUREAUS

IFRoM TIE TRIBUNE RuREArl1
washington. Feb. canadian No. bars
vrbeat imported and ground with American
wheat is TO be entitled TO drawback of 90 per
cent Of its full value when exported as -four.
Attorney General Moody having sustained the
contention OF the Minneapolis millers to this
enr. and Secretary Shaw viii issue in a day or
.v-o the regulations under which the privilege
ray be enjoyed
We viii proceed TO carry out the plan at
oucs" said Secretary Shaw to-day The mil
,srs will be told TO place their books and their
business in such shape that the agents of the
sspartnent may at all times scrutinize every
-,ove bearing on the receipt and shipment of the
4r,ported wheat The millers know now just
how much the wheat costs them, just how much
!. # goes into the -four they make and just
NV much remains in the United States and
+o- much goes abroad. Our agents have al
ready been through their establishments and
received an insight into the wonderful system
# bookkeeping they carry on. You can go into
sny Of their warehouses and pick up wheat
.scz or 3 -four bag and learn the entire history
., It inside Of three minutes After the order
vces into effect 1 don't suppose that they will
Raw. q more elaborate system than they already
maintain but il win. of course, be open to this
department for inspection at all times
Mr.. MOODY'S OPINION.
Attorney General Moody in his opinion, which
,s dated January "A, after reciting the questions
submitted 10 him from the Treasury Department
.,5 ouoting the clause in the tariff act of July
q 1897. establishing drawbacks, quotes the ar
rur9ent used by Attorney General Olney in de-
Tving the claim Of the Kansas City Smelling and
eeHDing Company for a drawback on imported
LEAD which had been mingled with domestic lead
IN process Of manufacture. and that of Attorney
General Griggs and Solicitor General Richards
reversing Mr. Olney's opinion He notes that
Nr Griggs's opinion was rendered in the ad-
-,inistration OF President Mckinley, who, as
chairman of the Committee Ways and Means
n the House of Representatives, had prepared
tbis identical drawback law. which first ap-
reared in the tariff act OF 1890, and who in a
sneech in the House OF Representatives, had ex-
rlained its purpose. Mr.. Mckinley said:
The bill proposes that the American citizen may
tr-n0- amy product he desires. manufacture II into
he finished article using IN part II neeeSSsrE e IN
sach manufacture domestic materials, ana %n6n t5 a
r. hin within : per cent Of all the duty he paid
- ra-i-aI and ab6r Of this country substantially
frs trade in all foreign materials for use IN the
product shall he made wholly OF the, foreign ma
isisL Already. under special PROVISIONS OF laws avs
and regulations OF the treasury Depar pa IS =
n Z finished product made here and attached TO
n rs drswbsck We have extended this pro
vision. and in every way possible lberalzed it. so
mon ne arfv he navs upon his foreign material
Intended for export; which is. in effect what free
traders, and political opponents are clamor1ng
And if YOU are desirols OF seeing what you can do
Il the way Of entering the foreign market. here is
Il compIeteiy. if the provision be adopted, dis
poses Of what has sometimes seemed TO be an al
sented by our friends on the other sidethat If We
capture the markets Of the world We give them
RSlIs Fori6. mem 10 60 I' capture 's "4'Ae's 0' '
Mr. springer-v1H the gentleman. permit to
lsk II that also applies TO wool?
N-. AIcKinley,-Tes; il applies 10 ANYTHING which
Ehsy choose TO import for purposes Of manufacture
Nj Noody's opinion continues in part as fol
lows:
The principle upon which the opinion of Mr
5risgs was based as clearly admits the case
stated by You TO the privilege OF the drawback
ss thar Of NJ Clney excludes IL. The two opin-
ions ara irreconcilable and the later distinctly
pTerruled the earlier The opinion Of Mr.. Griggs
las been acted upon in administration Upon
inquiry from you I have learned that. accept
tng the opinion Of Mr.. Griggs stating the
settled Interpretation Of the drawback law.
1-sTbacks in large amounts have been ascer-
famed from books Of account Of the exporters
snd other evidence, and upon such evidence
have been paid by the Treasury Department to
nose claiming them IN the total drawback.
amounting 10 over 81. 100000 paid by the Treas
1ry Department in the year 1903 a very large
proportion was paid, upon the expectation Of
manufactures in which the imported and domes-
uc materials were so blended that they were not
apparent 70 the sight or other senses, and could
eny be ascertained by the Tnanufa facturers' rec
2ra The following specific cases are cited as
Instances.
a. torrs ~ manufactured lead -si45 &c
aengct1rNs from and nolasses- sG3 Sc
oon1hc ali kinds II
Manufactures of
II is clear therefore that = de,,arturs fror7
ne principle governing Mr.. Ciriggs's opinion and
return 10 that governing Mr.. Olney's opinion
"ould have grave consequences in the admin
suatlon If the 1ra Wback law by requiring the
cessation II many drawbacks now allowed.
should hesitate long before rendering an
gpnlon which would have disastrous an ef-
lecI and should especially hesitate TO overruIe
y opinion of one Of my predecessors. delivered
14te- grave consideration, itself overruling a
pItFlous opinion and followed by administrative
rs of serious inpoI tance. Nothing would
JUSTIFY such a course except a controlling Judi
IL opinion. No such opinion has come TO my
Rusntion. but, on the contrary. the only de-
1son OF the Supreme Court which has any