The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1907-10-04

Attorney. So it seems the Hon. Secre
tary was allowed to use his own judg
ment in some cases. But we. canno,
help wondering il the Secretary woule
have agreed gladly with the Attorne,
il the latter had ruled that frosted when,
was beans.
But all this is not argument for either
side. 1t only goes to show that Mr.
Shaw is not always perfect in his logic
and possibly throws some doubt on the
correctness or infallibility of his ruling
in the rebate case.
In the discussion of this question, We
may first refer to the fact that for some
reason this is recent matter. No
amount of Canadian wheat was import
ed for many years previous, though Can
ada has always been something of a
wheatgrower. The reason of that was
that Canada until recently produced no
hard wheat. This is the meat of the
whole matter. 1t is"hard" wheat we are
discussing, while Mr.. Shaw is thinl-
ing apparently of only the soft varieties.
Minneapolis millers certainly do mix
soft wheat with hard wheat as stated by
MIR. Shaw. That may be benefit to
the southern and middle state soft
wheat farmers but is open to argument.
When the tariff was practically taken
off hard Canadian wheat by allowing
"milling in transit in bond" it cut but
little figure with us because the hard
wheat must be mixed with soft wheat
to be made profitable to the millers.
Flour from hard wheat is almost
an unknown product. The soft wheat
in turn must he mixed with hard wheat
to make good flour. Without mixing
there is little use of importation. With
mixing there was every financial reason
for the importation of Canadian hard
wheat, becausel it could be bought cheap
er. Canadian wheat has been for sever
al years all the way from five to twenty
cents cheaper than the same variety of
wheat on this side of the line. Besides
this the production of Manitoba has nev-
er been of so great an amount as to ma
terially affect the American market.
But now, with the millions of square
miles of Alberta and Saskatchewan ad-
ded to the area of Manitoba, with their
confined enormous capabilities of rails
ing hard wheat, in direct competition
with our own product, it makes the
North Dakota farmer sit up and look
about him.
As to whether it will be a rulnous COM
petition it is only necessary to refer to
the known laws of supply and demand.
Hard wheat is the product of only three
states, North Dakota, South Dakota
end Minnesota. 1t is necessity to the
Minneapolis mills. Our only COMPETE
tor is the anadian northwest.
Mr.. Shaw says that the product of the
mills from the Canadian wheat is all ex-
ported and hence makes no difference to
the "home market" But Mr.. S. forgets
that we have home market that this
Canadian wheat is and will be flooding.
Minneapolis, for the reasons already d.
vanced and some not mentioned, is our
present only home market for hard
wheat. We have just as much right to
be protected by the operation of the
tariff on our wheat as have the millers
on -four. Wheat is not ''raw material"
1t represents far more manual labor in
its production in the grain than does
the transformation of the grain into
-four. 1t takes far more work for the
farmer to raise a bushel wheat for
the market than for the millers to grind
it. We believe there are a hundred
farmers to one miller at least. The pro-
portion that the numerical Importance
of the hard wheat farmers of the north
west states bears to the whole number
of farmers, statistics will show. And if
the eastern farmers who have no direct
interest in this controversy are eliminat-
ed, we are greatly in the majority.
But to quote Mr.. Shaw again: our on
ly excuse for this awful longs editorial,
which has just referred to a few of the
more important facts connected with
this subject, lit is the we'll known fact
that recklessly incorrect statements can
be make in fewer words than it takes to
prove their falsity."
We will close by adding that no one
blames Mr.. Shaw or the Attorney Gener-
al for their honest Interpretation of the
law and under their Interpretation we
will accept their decision-until we can
get some other Attorney General to rule
our way. That there was question
history proves, and possibly Mr.. Shaw
was wrong. If not, then North Dakota
farmers will lose no time in instructing
their representatives in Congress to use
their best endeavors to have the law
changed. The North Dakota farmer
don't want to see Canadian wheat i'm
ported without limit into his only mar