The Oakes times. [volume] (Oakes, N.D.) 1906-current, 1907-10-03
SHAW DISCUSSES
WHEAT DRAWBACK.
Says Senator Hansbroush Mis-.
represents in His Speeches.
The Farmers Of North Dakota Not DAMAGED
In Least by the Ruling Of the Treas.
ury DEPARTMENT and the
Senator Knows Il.

The Times is in receipt of the follow
ing letter from Leslie M. Shaw, for
merly secretary of the United States
treasury, and at one time governor of
Iowa. The subject at issue has been
discussed at some length in the press
of this state. While The Times has
not taken part in the recent discussion
the public is entitled to the facts in the
case. Secretary Shaw being in the
position to present the matter in its
true light The Times gives space to the
letter in full:
New York, N. Y, Sept. 27, 1907.
Editor Times, Oakes, N. d.
Dear Sir: My attention has just been
called to speech made by the distin-
guished senior senator of North Dakota,
at Casselton on September End, in
which he tells the people of his state
how he tried to prevent the grinding of
Canadian wheat in the United States
for export. If he had correctly stated
the facts, would not reply. l have
tried several times to explain these
facts to the senator, but his customary
aptitude to understand economic prop
ositions seems to fail him at this point.
I think, however, the farmers of your
state will readily grasp them. They
are not complicated or involved; and
your people are pretty intelligent. Many
of them, you know, are from my state.
The senator says. 'The duty was
removed (referring to the duty on
wheat) by a single individual at the
behest of the millers' association, for
the sole benefit of a few foreign con-
sumers." This sentence is incorrect in
every particular. First, the duty was
not removed. Second, the millers'
association never made any request
whatsoever in the premises. Third,
what was done was not the act of a
single individual, for the attorney gen.
eral first gave an opinion that the i'm
porter was entitled to the drawback,
and the secretary .of, the treasury there
after approved the application. Fourth.
this was not done in the interest of the
foreign consumer, but in the interest
of the American miller, the American
mill laborer and the American farmer.
Naturally the foreign consumer would
have been just as well pleased had the
wheat been ground in Canada as in the
United States, and probably better
pleased still, had the Canadian wheat
been exported and ground at Liverpool.
If the senator were not such high
minded and honorable man, should be
disposed to question his motives as well
as his recollection, for ON April ID, 1905,
I wrote him in part as follows: ''The
reason / Igranted the drawback on flour
was because the attorney general de-
cided that the exporter of -four had the
right thereto under the law. The rea-
son I believe in the law is because it
furnishes European market for some
American wheat and does not affect the
domestic market, for no Canadian
wheat is allowed to enter the American
market for consumption without the
payment of duty"
In his letter to me the senator had
drawn what he called ''deadly paral-
lei" which the following paragraph in
my reply sufficiently explains: "Your
parallel between eighty cent wheat from
Canada to be ground in the United
States and a $50 coat from Canada to
have buttons attached in the United
States is not, as you term it, deadly
parallel, for the wheat enters the
American market only to be ground
and then exported, while the coat would
enter the American market for con-
sumption. If the coat was to be ex-
ported after the buttons were attached,
should favor it, provided, as in the
wheat case, a similar coat could be
produced in the United States at a
price that would justify expectation.
My reason would be that the drawback
on the coat with American buttons at
tached would furnish employment for
the American button maker and not
injure the American coat maker, he
being already barred from the foreign
market. In fact, it would probably
benefit him, for the button maker
would very likely buy and wear an
American made coat
The law to which the senator objects
and which he tried to get amended was
first incorporated into the Mckinley
tariff act of 1890. It was subsequently
re-enacted in the Dingley act, and At
torney General Griggs when in McKin-
ley's cabinet, sustained it exactly as
interpreted by Attorney General Moody
and as administered by Secretary Of the
Z CONTINUED on page six)