The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1907-10-04
New York, N. Y, Sept. q l9

Editors Pioneer Express.
Dear Sirs: .
l My attention has just been called
to speech made by the distinguished
Senior Senator Of North Dakota at
Casselton on September End, in which
he tells the people of the State how he
tried to prevent the grinding of Canad.
ian wheat in the United States for ex-
port. If he had correctly stated the
facts l would not reply. l have tried
several times to explain these facts to
the Senator, but his customary aptitude
to understand economic propositions
seems to fail him at this point. l think
however, the farmers of your State will
readily grasp them. They are not COM
plicated or involved: and your people
are pretty intelligent. Many of them
you know are from my State.
Il 2 The Senator says: "The duty was
removedreferring to the duty on wheat)
10y single individual at the behest OF
the Millers Association, for the benefit
of few foreign consumers" This SEN
tence is incorrect in every particular
First: The duty was not removed.
Second; The Millers Association never
made any request whatsoever in the pre-
misses. Third: What was done was
not the act of single individual, for
the Attorney General first gave an opin-
ion that the importer was entitled to the
drawback, and the Secretary of the
Treasury thereafter approvedsthe appli-
cation, 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 for:
eign consumer would have been just as
we'll 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.
4 3 If the Senator were not such a
hlgh-minded and honorable man l
should be disposed to question his mo-
tives as well as his recollection, for on
April 14th, 1905, 1 wrote him in part as
follows; "The reason I granted the
draw back on -four was because the At
torney General decided that the expor-
tor Of flour had the right thereto under
the law. The reason 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"
\ *
4 4 The law to which the Senator OBJ
jects and which he tried to get amended
was first incorporated into the Mckinley
Tariff Act of 1890. 1t was subsequently
re-enacted in the Dingley Act, and At
torney General Griggs when in McKin-
ley's cabinet sustained 1T exactly(as in
terpreted by Attorney General Moody
and as administered by Secretary of the
Treasurer Shaw) think the farmers
of North Dakota will readily reach The
conclusion that Griggs while Attorney
General under Mckinley was able to as
certain what Mckinley meant when he
wrote the law. He held that the ex-
porter of lead bullion produced in part
from imported ore was entitled to re-
fund Of the duty paid on the ore con-
sumed in the manufacture of exported
bullion. OF course the amount of import
ed ore consumed in the production of
lead bullion does not appeas to the eye
or any of our other senses in the export
ed article, but when the amount can be
made to appear from the books and re-
cords of the business, the drawback is
allowed. Attorney General Moody, fol-
lowing the opinion of Attorney General
Griggs, held that the exporter of -four
produced in part from imported wheat
was entitled to refund of the duty
paid upon the wheat consumed in the
production of -four which does not appear
to the eye or any of the other senses, but
when the amount is shown by the books
and records, the drawback is allowed.
The cases are not only analogous but
parallel.
Il 5 My dear Mr.. Editor, I want the
good people Of North Dakota to know
that no particle of Canadian wheat ever
entered the American market for con-