The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1907-10-04

United States at a price that
would justify expectation. My
reason would be that the draw
back on the coat with Ameri-
can buttons attached 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"
Now, Sir, I want the good
people of North Dakota to
know that no particle of Cana
dian wheat ever entered the
American market for consump-
ton by my consent without the
payment of duty, and 1 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. 49,.
The distinguished Senator
does not refer to- one other i'm
portant feature. At the time
this matter was pending, the
ruling price for wheat in Cana
da was about 20 cents per bus
hel less than in the United
States and it requires aboutfour
bushels of wheat to make a
barrel of flour. It does not take
an expert to show that the AM
erican miller cannot pay $500
for enough wheat to make a
barrel of flour and export the
product in competition with the
Canadian miller who pays So. 20
for the same amount of mater
ia1, 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 mil1ers
were to keep American brands
of flour on the European mar
ket, they we're compelled to re-
sort to some one or more of the
provisions in the Dingley law
made expressly for cases of this
kind. First: They could bring
In the Canadian wheat and
grind it in bond without the
payment of any duty, provided
they exported all the product.
To this privilege the distin-
guished 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. I never knew the Sena-
tor to object to this duly author
lied way. The only thing to
which the Senator objects is
the right, under the opinions [
have quoted, to use part Cana
dian wheat and part American
wheat and get the duty back
which they pay on the import
ed portion. In other words, the
Senator was willing the Ameri-
can miller should bring in four
bushels of Canadian wheat,
grind it, export the product and
get his duty back, but he OBJ
jects to his bringing in two
bushels of Canadian wheat to
be mixed with two bushels of
American wheat and getting
the duty back when he export
ed the blended article.
The Senator claims that this
privilege, which he tried in vain
to get repealed, resulted in the
importation of about three mil
lion bushels of Canadian wheat.
I have not examined the record,
but 1 think he has over-estimat-
ed more than four fold the
benefits which the American
farmer has received under the
law, for it is a law and not a
ruling to which he objects.
If he is right, then he has pro-
ven too much, for it proves that
this very provision of law made
it possible for the American
millers to export certainly three
million bushels of American
wheat. I want the farmers of
North Dakota to know that for
every bushel imported and
ground in the United States
there was mixed with it a bus
hel of American wheat, all of
which was exported before this
duty was refunded to the inn
porter.
The reason why I granted
the drawback was because the
Attorney General decided that
the exporter was entitled there
i