Devils Lake inter-ocean. (Devils Lake, Ramsey Co., Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1905, 1905-04-07

tlSdSuIy 0SpoLoliiS1AOE1 Ao CyidSltCO
sufficient to justify the granting
of the privilege. This is a gross
perversion Of the law, especially
in the case Of wheat. The mil.
lers claim that they must have
the Canadian wheat, to be blend
ed with domestic soft wheat, for
the manufacture of flour for ex
port. This is a shifty and thinly
disguised subterfuge, by which
even the tariff revisionists and
readjusters Of the treasury
department should not have been
deceived.
Furthermore, the grades Of
hard wheat are always higher
in price than the grades Of soft
wheat, and the high priced
wheat is never Used in export
flour, which must be sold in The
worlds markets in competition
with the cheap fiours Of the
world. Yet under the treasury
departments remarkable policy
it is all-sufficient if the miller
swears he has used a high priced
wheat with which to make a
low-priced -four. The depart
ment will go through the form
of supervising the oberation, but
it will never be able to follow a
given quantity of wheat through
miles Of elevator shafts and
spouts or to locate it even by
chemical analysis in the com
pleted article.
"Anl so with congres sional
tariff readjustment now practi-
cally out of the question; with
every demand Of the manufac-
turers acceded to; with a firmly
established treasury department
policy that discriminates against
five millions Of grain growers
and thousands of miners and
other producers of raw materials,
with a treasury deficit back Of
us and one in front of us; with
the house of representatives in
the grasp of an autocracy Of
standpatters, we find ourselves
joyouslv and blithley gliding
down the toboggan slide Of pros
perity with our vision compla-
Gently fixed upon the mythical
man in the moon. The situation
is altogether very beautiful to
contemplate and shows what a
great country like ours can en-
dure for the time being. My
faith in the policy Of protection
is mistaken. 1t is the modern
application of the policy that
disturbs me-
''What do you think of the
possibility Of reciprocity with
Canada?
There will be no reciprocity
treaty with Canada, and so far as
Canada is concerned, none lis
necessary. Canada is now re-
ceiving greater benefits under
Secretary Shaw's tariff policy
! than would be possible under
any reciprocity treaty. Last
year we exported $1,000, 900
barrels of flour. If the secre-
tary's order had been in force
last year, nothing would have
prevented the millers Of the
country from claiming that all
this flour was made of imported
wheat. About four bushels Of
wheat are required to make a
barrel Of flour. Suppose they
could have claimed that there
were used two bushels Of i'm
ported wheat to the barrel.
This would mean a rebate of
duty of 5000, 600.
Could there be devised any
| sheme of reciprocity Of greater
4 advantage to Canada? Under
the drawback law, as now inter.
/ preted, Canada gets free trade
| for her greatest product. We
| get nothing in return from
i Canada, but we have the glori-
GUS privilege of making cheap
i flour for foreign consumers al
the expense Of the American
grain grower. It is not surpris.
ing, therefore, that Canada,
!, about the time that Secretary
!, Shaw announced his tariff revi
sion policy, rejected Vice Presi.
!. dent Fairbanks invitation te
reassemble the high joint com.
mission.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, ths
/ Canadian premier, knows a gooe
i thing when he sees it, Wash
ington Post.