The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1907-10-04
EX-TREAS-
URER SHAW
Speaks out in a Letter to The
COurant.
WHEAT DRAWBACK
is the Subject of His Letter and Its
Relation to the North Dakota Far
mer. It Interests All.

1S Cuo OuUjoCU VI Ills ucGUcI duU 1to
Relation to the North Dakota Far
mer. It Interests All.
Leslie NJ. Shaw, ex-Treasurer
of the u. S. Treasury depart
ment, rises to defend himself
on the question of the wheat
drawback in the following & letter
to The Courant; he has some
pertinent things to say that ef-
fects the North Dakota farmer:
MY attention has just been
called to a speech made by the
distinguished Senior Senator of
North Dakota at Casselton on
September 2nd, in which he
tells the people Of his state how
he tried to prevent the grinding
of Canadian wheat in the Un-
tied States for export. If he
had correctly stated the facts, I
would not reply. I have tried
several times to explain these
facts to the Senator, but his
customary aptitude to under
stand economic propositions
seems to fail him at this point.
I think, however, the farmers
of your state will readily grasp
them. They are not complicat-
ed 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 hehest of the
MiIlers Association, for the sole
benefit of a few foreign con-
sumers." This sentence is in
correct in every particular.
First: The duty was not remov-
ed. Second: The Millers As
sociation never made any re-
quest whatsoever in the prem
ises. Third: What was done
was not the act of a single in
dividual, for the Attorney Gen.
eral first gave an opinion that
the importer was entitled to the
drawback, and the Secretary of
the Treasury thereafter approx
ed the application, Fourth:
This was not done in the in
terest of the foreign consumer
but in the interest of the Am
erican miller, the American mill
1aborer and the American farm
er. Naturally the foreign con-
sumer 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.
If the Senator were not such
a high-minded and honorable
man 1 should be disposed to
question his motives as we'll as
his reco1lections, for on April
18th, 1905, / wrote him in part
as follows: "The reason I
granted the drawback on flour
was because the Attorney Gen
.eral decided that the exporter
pot flour had the right thereto
under the law. The reason I
believe in the law is because it
furnishes an European market
for some American wheat and
does not affect the domestic
market, for no Canadian wheat
is allowed to enter the Ameri-
can market for consumption
without the payment of duty"
In his letter to me the Sen
ator had drawn what he called
a deadly parallel" which the
following paragraph in my re-
ply sufficie tly explains:
Your parallel between eighty
cent wheat from Canada to be
ground in the United States
and $50 coat from Canada to
have buttons attached in the
United States is not, as you
term it, a deadly parallel, for
, the wheat enters the American
market only to be ground and
then exported, while the coat
would enter the American mar
ket for consumption. If the
coat was to be exported after
the buttons were attached, l
should favor it. provided, as in
the wheat case, a similar coat
could not be produced in the