The Saint Paul globe., 1905-01-30

trade.''
During the speech Mr.. Springer inter-
Top.ea Io esi - Mili t, the gentleman permit me
this MI. Mckinley answered, Yes. it ap-
plies to anything they choose to import for
purposes of manufacture
III therefore occurs to me that possibly
you may have slightly misunderstood the
intent OF the Dingley tariff act and the
preceding Mckinley tariff act. Tariff
protecting the American producer within
the American market, and sections Is and
50 s,, OF the same law We're enacted to aid
the American producer in his efforts to
successfully compete in foreign markets
You will readily understand that congress
couid &C not protect the American producer
IN foreign markets, however 1t might try
Taxing this view of the case you will rec
Ognlze that the two provisions-protecti
for a,1ons ,ne @ @eneoa93ragement a3 of American pro-
drawbacks for the encouragement of
American exporters-are consistent
Interprets Dinsley Law
If understand the Dingley law cor
rectly, it in effect says to the American
have protection within the American mar
ket. Whoever invades the American mar
ket must pay duty upon the articles with
law says to the American exporter If YOU
will employ American labor, pay Ameri-
can wages. you shall have every possible
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
BEL be paid. SO that the American laborer
ily, unpatched clothes upon his children,
once each day. If / am correct. the
Dingley law, is consistent with itself. and
does no violence to the principle of pro-
lection to and the encouragement Of
American industries. is--ersFn7
From what have already said it will
appear that the real issue involved is quite
uni,nportant. The American manufac-
turer OF flour has the unquestioned right
to grind imported wheat in bond, export
his product and pay no duty. He also
has the unquestioned right to grind Cana
dian wheat out of bond, and II he export
SO per cent Of the duty he has paid. He
also has the unquestioned right to export
a portion Of his product, and get a pro-
duty he has paid, based upon the relative
market value of the portion exported and
the portion entering the American mar
ed upon and approved by the supreme
court of the United States.
Gives An Example
Worked out In an actual example we
have this proposition. The American mill
paying duy ihereon and 9g When he
exports a barrel of flour, the product of
this wheat, get in drawback such portion
of SO cents as the market value of the
barrel of flour bears to the market value
of the entire product of the imported
wheat. The question submitted to the
attorney general is whether the American
miller can import two bushels of Cana
dian wheat, paying SO cents in duty
blend this with two bushels of American
wheat, export barrel of -four, and re-
cover any portion of the duty he has paid
1t has from the beginning seemed little
strange to me that there should be so
much objection to the consumption of a
moiety of American wheat
Believing the question has not been
fairly presented your body, l have taken
the liberty of replying somewhat in detail
to your very courteous resolution have
carefully avoided the legal questions IN
volved.> My aim has been rather to invite
careful investigation of all phases of the
question than to support conclusion.
Walter E. Clark.