The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1905-04-20

Your assertion that the American mil
Ter must retire from the export business
unless Canadian wheat is used" is at
variance with the statistics Of your own
department. During the calendar year
preceding your decision permitting the
blending OF Canadian wheat with domes-
tic wheat in the manufa cture of -four for
export, the american millers sold and
shipped to foreign consumers 1852 6lS
barrels of flour, the equivalent OF nearly
$4,000; 900 bushels of wheat. For the same
period our lmportations Of wheat were
only 1,9O2.O49 bushels the equivalent of
less than 100000 barrels of four / think
these figures effectually dispose of your
major premise" and. when you have
analysed them and more fully considered
the facts / shall expect you TO keep your
promise to join me in preserving the
rights OF the American grain grower.
Depress Domestic Wheat
II the Millers' association have been
given the wheat blending privilege upon
the argument that without that privilege
they must retire from the export bust
ness, then the treasury department has
been grossly deceived: Your department
data shows conclusively that the Ameri-
can miller can and does export flour
made wholly from American wheat" and
That he did SO during the year 1904 to
the extent OF about IL 600. 900 barrels
over and above the wheat imports and
when American wheat was selling at
dollar per bushel at the elevators. No
If he could buy his wheat a SO cents
per bushel, the Canadian price. and this
is what he is now doing under your de-
cision. Very naturally the effect will be
10 depress tho price of domestic wheat
just as the free Importation of manufac-
tured goods would be to depress the price
OF the latter: The miller prefers so cent
wheat TO dollar wheat. the quality being
the same. For like economic reasons. YOU
prefer thirty dollar coat to forty dollar
coat, II the quality Is the same; but If
you are given the privilege of buying
a thirty dollar Canadian xt-ffb
buttons with the understanding that you
are to have American buttons sewed on
IN the United States. you may help the
buttonmaker 40 some extent. but il will
be at the expense OF oilers of our own
citizens who are earning American wages
making forty dollar coats. The deadly
parallel might be used Indefinitely with
out disturbing a single one of the many
eloquent speeches you have made in sup
port of protective tariff
When you have made a closer study of
the case you will perceive that the opera
ton of a system of wheat importations
under your decision is altogether different
from what happened or is likely to hap
pen under section 10. which permits grind
ing in bond and the first paragraph of
section 80 of the Dingley law which al
lows drawback on articles made wholly
OF imported materials. Good and wise
men" will find no difficulty I'm seeing the
unlimited possibilities as regards the vol
ume of imports under your decision
whereas they have but to examine the
under section Is and the first para graph
of section sc have been insignificant
amounting TO only 9O0.951 bushels in 1903
and 1902, 049 bushels i'm 1904
Action Fifteen Years AGO
While the Mckinley bill was being
framed certain manufacturers sought to
have the drawback section extended so
as to permit the blending of foreign and
domestic materials. To the minds OF
those who We're framing the tariff act of
1880 this raised new and important
question. How could the mixing process
be provided for without impairing the
protective system and offering a premium
upon fraud? Treasury department off,
Gals themselves pointed TO the dangers
I'm such a policy. The matter was finally
disposed of by the adoption of the fol-
lowing proviso:
That when the articles exported are
made in part from domestic materials. the
imported materials. or the parts of the
articles made from such materials. shall
so appear in the completed article that
the quantity or measure thereof may be
ascertained''
That was in 1890. In December. 1894.
an American smelling company applied to
your department for the privilege of i'm
porting lead ores TO be blended with
American ores. The then secretary OF
the treasury sent the matter TO Atty
Gen. Olney, who. referring specifically 10
the proViso quoted above, gave this opin-
ion:
You assume that the proviso forbids
cases where the article manufactured or
produced can be so separated chemically
or mechanically into its component mate
rails that the relative proportions of each
material may be ascertained without ref
erence TO past books of account This
assumption. In my opinion, is entirely
correct The section is intended to apply
only to cases where an article is made
OF two or more different materials The
possible existence in commerce of a mere
mixture or melting together Of articles
ldenflCallX the fhnfOf, art
tic and part foreign. does not seem. TO
have been contemplated by congress-
This opinion prevailed as the rule of
your department until Atty Gen. Griggs
reversed IL In 1897, since which time there
has been a perfect flood of applications
for the blending privilege. all of which. l
doubt as TO the reason why this question
has never found Its way to a judicial
tribunal, any good lawyer can tell YOU
why an appeal from the decision of the
government against the government itself
will not lie.
Your decision as to what was. in my
judgment, the GROWING act In behalf of
policy under which all raw materials
are now practically on the free list with
every possible advantage reserved for the
manufacturer. In effect the % cent duty
on wheat has been repealed. Hereafter
all such duties are 10 be related 10 those
persons who. as you must admit are the
only importers of wheat.
have no desire to prolong the discus
sion of the subject at this time III Won
90 not see fit to revoke your decision be-
foTehand, / am content TO rest the case
until congress convenes. for by that time
j am confident there will be such an
awakening. even in manufacturing circles
that the standpat managers of the house
of representatives will be compelled to
come to the rescue and save our most
admirable and benefcent Institution OF
protection from destruction. and restore
the prerogative of tariff revision to the
legislative branch OF the government
where the constitution originally placed
1t. Very truly yours.
H. c. Hansbrough.
Shaw Returns With Jats