Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-01-31
SHAW EXPLAINS THE DRAWBACK
O1HlU LIN LIlHIU I'LL DINHWDIlUN
Secretary Of the Treasury Shaw Sends Letter
To Legislature Explaining the Drawback
Prof [add Addresses the Lower House On the Question
Of Pure Food Legislation
SENATE.

-: ---
SENATE. ~" i
Several bills were introduced in the
senate yesterday afternoon, the most i'm
portant of which were an anti-pass
measure by Senator Med Donald, a bill by
Senator Thatcher of Dickey, making an
of $4,000 for the indus
trial school at Glendale, and primary
election law by Senator Thatcher. The
latter differs from the bill introduced in
that it does not include United States
in the officers to be voted for
and differs in several minor points.
Senate bill y introduced by Senator
Cashel, providing for the government Of
towns and villages, was passed without
q dissenting vote. ''
Letter From Secretary Shaw.
Several days ago Representative
Davis introduced a concurrent resolu-
ton, asking the North Dakota repre-
sentatives in Washington to use every
endeavor to defeat the proposed draw
back on Canadian wheat recommended
by Secretary Shaw, of the treasury
department. Secretary Shaw. in a
letter to Speaker Piercey, takes oc-
casion to explain some of the features
of the tariff law relating particularly
to this subject. He says:
am in receipt of a concurrent
resolution introduced and passed in
the North Dakota legislature relative
to the application of certain millers fol
a drawback on wheat produced in part
from Canadian and in part from Amer
lean wheat.
Section Is of the Dingley Tariff Act
relates to manufactures in bond
Material used in bonded factories pays
no duty whatever, and the question OF
drawback does not apply. Section 80
of the Dingley Tariff Act unequivo
cally permits a drawback on the ex
portation of articles produced wholly
from imported material This, of
course, applies to -four as well as to
other manufactures.
Thus far there is no conflict of opin.
ion. The only ambiguity is in refer
ence to a drawback on the expectation
of articles produced in part from i'm
ported and in part from domestic ma
terial when the amount of imported
material does not so appear to the
eye in the completed article that the
quantity or measure thereof can be
ascertained. You will see that it is
important to understand the issue in
volved in order to understand either
the argument in support of the request
or the effect of granting the same.
1t is conceded, of course, that the
amount of imported wheat used in the
of barrel of flour does
not.apear to the eye. In an analogous
case Attorney-General Olney held that
the amount or quantity of imported
used must appear to the eye
in the completed article to entitle it
to a drawback. This opinion was
overruled, however, by Attorney-Gen-
eral Griggs, who, in an analogous
case held that if the amount of i'm
ported material was ascertainable in
any other way than by the exercise
of the sense of sight, the drawback
could be allowed. In his opinion the
requirement was met if the amount
of imported material used was made
to appear to the knowledge and under
standing of the person charged with
the responsibility of deciding.
~ This opinion, 1 repeat, overruled the
opinion of Acknowledgement Olney,
and is as binding upon the Secretary
Of the Treasury as though the Olney
opinion had never been rendered. It
does not leave the Secretary of the
Treasury in the position of having two
opinions with discretion as to which
one he shall follow. -a.
But, antagonistic opinion having
been rendered, and there being some
opposition to the request, i have taken
occasion again to submit the question
to the Attorney General. I doubt not
yodr body viii approve this course,
The Treasury Department, in the exc
cntion Of the laws. is controlled by
The Attorney-Ge and his opinion
Is the departments court OF last re-
sort. i v.
Having explained what has been
done would be authorized to dismiss
The subject but I notice In the resolu-