Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-04-18
WHEAT DRAWBACK CONTROVERSY
Senator Hansbrough Stands Up for the Inter
estS Of North Dakota Wheat Growers
The Ruling Of Secretary Shaw in the Interest Of Mlers
and Canadian Wheat RaSerS

The Washington Post Of the 14th
inst contains the following:
The first two installments of Secre-
tary Shaw's and Senator Hansbrough's
rapidfre correspondence on the wheat
drawback have been furnished for
publication with the consent of both
the parties thereto Under date of
April 4th the Secretary wrote Senator
Hansbrough, calling his attention to
an interview In The Post, and saying:
"M course, I know without being
told that you were improperly quoted,
but whether it Is worth while for you
to deny, am not prepared to say. I
do not care anything about it If you
do not. While on the face of the in
terview it seems to do me an injus,
tice, think ii, in fact, does you far
greater injustice. -.
"The dnterview quotes you as stat
ing Secretary Shaw, in furtherance of
his fantastic and unconstitutional
scheme of tariff revision by applica-
ton of the drawback law, permitted
the mixers to bring in wheat from
abroad etc. AS have already said,
I know you did not speak of the
drawback law as unconstitutional,
nor oS Secretary Shaw's scheme Of
tariff revision. You have never COM
planned to me of the unconstitutionL
atty Of the drawback law, nor of its
application to flour made wholly from
Canadian wheab. If you had been
writing am interview, lam certain you
would have called attention to the fact
that. under the Grigss opinion, the
millers were entitled to drawback ON
hour composed in part OF Canadian
and In part Of American wheat, but
that to avoid any doubt Submitted
the question to the attorney general.
The fact that believe both In the
wisdom OF the law and In the correct
ness Of the interpretation Of Attorney
General Griggs and Attorney General
Moody does not make the scheme
mine. The scheme was McKinley's,
though the drawback law Is almost
as old as the tariff, law. After the
Griggs opinion congress had ample
opportunity to amend the drawback
law, but It did moi, and therefore, by
acQuescence, congress becomes re-
sponsible for the Griggs and Moody
opinions.
Il do not suppose the interview will
attract much attention, but I thought
would bring it to your notice, and
you can do as you think best about
denying it. Whoever wrote the inter-
view was also wrong in his logic. He
states: The fact Is that millers can
get all the wheat they want in the
United Stats II they will pay, the
price. They prefer the Canadian
wheat because it is from Is to 20 cents
per bushel cheaper No mention is
made of the fact, which think is ap-
. parent, that American millers cannot
pay Is or 20 cents per bushel more for
wheat and export the product in COM
petition with wheat ground in Canada
or exported direct from Canada. I
think told you at one interview we
had that a treasurer expert (former
bank examiner) discovered from the
books of the Minneapolis mills that
they were only making cents per bar
rel on -four, It takes little over four
bushels of wheat to make barrel of
-four, and, Of course, Is cents per
bushel extra on wheat would very soon
exhaust the S cents profit on flour.
This is another reason why know you
did not. write the interview.
II presume you are gratified as I
am, that the price of American wheat
has not been prejudGced by the Moody
decision or by the enforcement of the
law in harmony with the opinion of
the attorney general. ..,
Wishing you very pleasant sum-
mer, and with kind regards to Mrs.
Hansbrough, remain, very sincerely
Yours, L. M. SHAW"
Hon. H. c. Hansbrough,
81 United States Senate.
In reply Senator Hansbrough wrote
to Secretary Shaw, under date of April
56, acknowledging receipt of the above