Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-01-31

ton the expressed opinion that 'sthe
granting of the application will prac-
tically nullify paragraph 234 Of the
Dngley law" Evidently Mr.. Dingley
was not of this opinion, for the two
provisions are in the same bill. But il
YOU are correct, and If section 80 null
lilies any portion of the act OF which
1t is a part, then the remedy Is with
the congress and not with the admin
istrative branch of the government.
The provisions Of law under consid-
Grafton first appear in the Mckinley
tariff act Of 1890. In his speech ex-
planning what was intended, after re-
ferring to the right of drawback pre-
viously granted on articles produced
wholly of foreign material, Mr.. McKin-
ley uses this language: -.
eve have extended this provision
and in every way possible liberalized
1t SO that the domestic and foreign
product can be combined and still al
low the exporter ninety-nine per cent
upon the duty he pays upon his for
eign material intended for export,
which is in effect what free traders
and our political opponents are clamor-
ing for, namely, free raw material for
the foreign trade"
During the speech, Mr. Springer in
terrupted, will the gentleman permit
me to ask If that applies also to
wool?" To this Mr.. Mckinley answer
ed. Eyes, it applies to anything they
choose to import for purposes of man.
ufacture.''
1t therefore occurs to me that pos
sibly you may have slightly misunder-
stood the intent of the Dingley tariff
act and the preceding Mckinley tariff
act. Tariff schedules were enacted for
the purpose Of protecting the American
producer within the American market,
and sections Is and 80 of the same law
were enacted to aid the American pro-
Queer In his efforts to successfully
compete in foreign markets. You will
readily understand that congress could
not protect the American producer in
foreign markets, however it might try.
Taking this view of the case, you will
recognize that the two provisions
protection for the announcement of
American producers for the American
market, and drawbacks for the encour-
agement of American exporters-are
consistent
If I understand the Dingley law cor
rectiy it in effect says to the American
producer, artisan, and farmer, you
shall have protection within the Amer
lean market. Whoever invades the
American market must pay duty upon
the articles with which he makes in
vasion. But the same law says to the
American exporter, if you will employ
American labor, pay American wages,
You shall have every possible advan-
tage in your effort to reach foreign
markets. You shall have free iron,
free lead, free wool, free hides, free
wheat, free everything except labor.
There must be neither contract labor
nor coolie labor employed even in the
manufacture of goods for export.
American wages must be paid so that
the American laborer shall be able to
put a roof over his family, unpatchee
clothes upon his children, and have
meat upon his table at least once each
day. If I am correct, the Dingley law
is consistent with itself, and does no
violence to the principle of protection
to and the encouragement of American
industries.
From what 1 have already said it
will appear that the real issue involved
is quite unimportant. The American
manufacturer of -four has the unques-
toned right to grind imported wheat
in bond, export his product, and pay no
duty. He also has the unquestioned
right to grind Canadian wheat out Of
bond, and, if he export all his product,
get drawback equal to niney mine per
cent Of the duty he has paid. He also
has the unquestioned right to export
a portion of his product, and get
proportionate share of the niney-nine
per cent Of the duty he has paid, based
upon the relative market value Of the
portion exported and the portion en-
Continued on page 81