The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1907-10-04
SECRETARY SHAW
ON .DRAWBACK''
Some Surprisingly illogical and
Misleading Statements
from High Source.

paymeat of duty, and have never been
able to see in what respect the American
farmer could be injured by allowing
American workmen to grind Canadian
wheat in the United States.
4 The distinguished Senator does
not refer to one other important feature
At the time this matter was pending,
the ruling price for wheat in Canada
was about 20 cents per bushel less than
in the United States and it requires
about four bushels of wheat to make a
barrel of flour. 1t does not take an ex-
pert to show that the American miller
cannot pay 81 for enough wheat to make
barrel OF flour and export the product
in comnetition with the Canadian miller
who pays 1920 for the same amount of
material, or with the Liverpool miller
who buys his wheat in Canada and takes
it over at a less freight rate than is
charged on -four. If the American mill
ers were to keep American brands of
flour on the European market, they were
compelled to resort to some one of the
Dingley laws made expressly for cases of
this kind. First: They could bring in
the Canadian wheat and grind it in bond
without payment of any duty, provided
they exported all the product. To this
privilege the distinguished Senator
never made objection. Second: They
could bring in Canadian wheat, pay the
duty, grind it and export the product
and get their duty back. 1 never knew
the Senator to object to this duly auth
orized way. The only thing to which
the Senator objects is the right, under
the opinions | have quoted to use-part
Canadian wheat and part American
wheat and get the duty back which they
pay on the imported portion. In other
words, the Senator was willing the
American miller should bring in four
bushels of Canadian wheat, grind it, ex-
port the product and get his duty back
but he objects to his bringing in two
bushels of Canadian wheat to be mixed
with two bushels of American wheat
and get the duty back when he exported
the blended article.
The Senator claims that this
privilege, which he tried in vain to get
repealed, resulted in the importation of
about three million bushels of Canadian
wh eat. l have not examined the record
but | think he has over-estimated more
than four fold the benefits (which the
American farmer has received under the
law, for it is a law and not ruling to
which he objects. If he is right, then
he has proven too much, for it proves
that this very provision of law made it
possible for the American millers to ex.
port certainly three million bushels of
American wheat. want the farmers
of North Dakota to know that for every
bushel imported and ground in. the
United States there was mixed with it
bushel of American wheat. all of which
was exported before this duty was re-
funded to the importer.
| The reason that granted the draw
back was because the Attorney General
decided that the exporter was entitled
thereto under law. Under the admins
tration with which was connected the
Departments were expected to admins
ter the laws as interpreted by the Attor-
ney General. I confess that 1 was very
glad to obey, though took the opinion
of the Attorney General before acting,
and the Attorney General gave the dis
tinguished Senior Senator from North
Dakota an opportunity to argue the case
before he decided.
II 8 The principal reason why I. was
glad that the law directed me to grant
a drawback was the fact that the privil-
ege furnished foreign market for the
product of some American wheat. The
way it was done was as follows: The
millers brought in some hard wheat from
Canada and mixed it with some of our
soft wheat and produced -four at price
at which they could export. In this way
every time barrel of -four on which a
drawback was allowed went out Of the
country, it carried the product Of at
least two bushels of the American crop
beyond the sea, and it kept American
brands Of -four on the European market
Continued on eighth page.