The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-03-03
DEFENDS
DRAWBACK PLAN
Expert Replies to Representative
Volstead, Presenting Rea-
sons for Privilege.

SS~SASSA~S5
sons for Privilege.
BY w. w. Jernane.
Special to The Journal.
Washington, March 3.-An interest
ing phase of the drawback privilege is
its legal aspect. TIL Q Journal pub
lished few days ago substantially all
Shaw, protesting against the mixing
and drawback privilege as applied to
Canadian wheat. Mr.. Volstead covered
the legal side of the question.
J. s. Kennedy Of Kennedy G. Moon,
the New York drawback experts, who
have charge Of this matter in Wash
ington for the millers, has written a
reply to Mr.. Volstead. Mr.. Kennedy
calls attention first to the fact that the
since 1861 and that the safeguards Gre
ated by it have been SO efficient that
no fraud has been committed.
But congress has not been content
to grant rebates on raw material used
in manufactures for export. Immedi-
ately after the great Chicago fire con-
gress passed special act exempting
from duty all imported articles used in
the rebuilding of the city. Similar acts
Of relief have since been passed by con-
gress. In 1879 there was such de-
mand for quinine that the prices were
extremely high, and to afford relief,
congress passed special act exempting
quinine from duty. -
In 1908 there was famine in coal
and congress passed a special act per-
hitting the importation of coal with
out the payment Of duty for the period
course, objected, but the public did not.
Emergency justified this action.
Demanded by Emergency.
/ Mr.. Kennedy argues that on the same
principle emergency justifes the draw
back privilege as applied to wheat. He
makes a plea for the consumer, main
tanning that the producer has not pro-
duced enough wheat to supply the de-
mand or protect the consumer from ex-
Of wheat is just as much entitled to
protection against exorbitant prices as
the consumer of coal.
But that part zogsNIr. Kennedy's ar
gument which seems to be of most in
terest relates to the legal aspect of the
question. On that pbint he proceeds as
follows:
| In defense Of Attorney General Moody Z
opinion, it may be stated that the United
/ STATES court mas SanCIlOneO the course
| that has been followed by the treasury
department from 1898 up to this time.
| (JOseph Schlitz Brewing company VS.
United States court Of claims, report 11O.)
United States, IS court Of claims re-
port, 110.)
there is an ambiguity in a statute, that
1t should be construed most favorably te
the citizen; and in ons of the cases the
court says: If I had access to the de.
bates in congress upon this subject, ant
could ascertain therefrom that the meas.
ure was one of public policy, then
would be prepared to give the most lib
eral construction to the words used, witt
a view to that end On the other hand
If those debates showed the purpose wal
to confer a privilege to the individual
man, should be prepared to place less
liberal Interpretation upon the word:
used" Omitted States VS.. 1876 Mares, 2!
Fed. Rep, page 1881
Moody's Opinion.
Attorney General Moody, in his opinio,
Of Jan. a., 1905, has followed the eours,
suggested by the court in the foregoing
case, quoting Mr.. Mckinley from volum,
81, Congressional Record, pages 42-4S
, showing that it was the intention Of Mr.
) Mckinley that the drawback should b.
so Hberalized as to include every articl
capable Of being manufactured, either il
whole or In part, from imported material
And when the word appear was place.
in the drawback law, it was not to con
found the administrative officials, or t.
deprive the manufacturer Of the right t.
: the drawback, as Mr.. McKinley's publ
;. record shows that he did not deal II
o words with double meanings, and to rul
e otherwise would have been slur on thi
+ great and honorable man.. Here are
e few opinions that bear on the case:
fI,1~@ l-s
8 cence in department regulation, and b.
!. 1t rights of parties for many years hav
: been adjusted. and determined, it is no
!, to be- d1sregarded without the most ur
+ gent and persuasive reasons" (Robertso
= VS.. Downing, 1877 United States. e07.)
8 In cases of serious ambiguity in tn
' language of a tariff act or doubtful classI
1 fication Of articles, the construction mus
Q De IN favor OF the importer, as duties ar
never imposed upon the citizens upo
, vague or doubtful interpretations" (Bow
9 ers VS.. Barney, s Batch, 2O2.)
statutes levying taxes or duties, O
a subjects or citizens, are to be construe
most strongly against the government
and in favor Of the subjects or citizens.
Omitted States VS.. Wigglesworth, 2 Stor,
369.) 1 49,.
s Where q. clause In a tariff act is ar
/ biguous, and no light for it's interpretatio
S can be derived from the provisions
e prior statutes relating to the same subjec
8 that construction must be adopted whic
e Is most favorable to the importer (Mt
Q Coy VS.. Hedden, SS Fed. Rep, 49,
f 1.-THE statute is to- be construed sens
o bly,, and with view to it's object, espe
' cially II it has in view individual or pull
lie welfare" Gibson VS.. Jenney, Is Ma
n sachusetts. 2O6) .ss.s
{ Even the letter of the law may be di
Q regarded when it does not appear to |
g in harmony with the spirit and evidel
n intent Of the act'' dewey VS.. Goo
g enough, Sc barb, $40
It will be seen by reference to the a,
s. thorities cited above that the opinion
u Attorney General Moody is quite in col
e fornity with the rules Of the courts ar
= various cases relating to the interpret;
< ton Of the tariff laws. and 1t furth
. shows that no violence has been done
the meaning Of the word appear in Sc
ton 80, act Of June "a, 1897.
Ill 80 xrr~~- xr-r- - .~-~ a =, : rrr~1 -