New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-08-20


Hon. Miles Taylor-He voted In Congress to
Reduce the Duty ON Sugar.
lMessrs. Eds.-When Representative is sent to
Congress it is expected of him to show by bis votes
as well his speeches, his determined purpose to
protect the interests Of his constituents The journal
of the House shows Mr.. Taylor not only to have
voted against measure through which, if carried,
large appropriation would have been granted to
remove distractions in Bayou Lafourche, but he
actually voted, along with Thomas Green Davidson
and John NJ Sandidge, in favor of two separate pro-
positions to reduce the duty sugar. while George
Eustis, Jr., was the only member from Louisiana who
voted to keep the duty at 30 per cent
Mr.. Taylor ought to explain these votes, for the
journal of the House of Representatives does really
SO declare them. Let US examine the record.
The bill to amend the tariff of 1916 coming up on
its engrossnent, Mr.. Campbell, chairman of the
Committee of Ways and Means, moved an amend
ment to erempt from duty certain goods, wares and
merchandise mentioned in Schedule l, which en-
braced an immense variety of articles not produced
in this country, and carefully omitted sugar' Pend
ing which, Mr.. Letcher of Virginia. moved an amend
ment to Mr.. Campbell's amendment, making rednc-
tion of 20 per cent. all the articles mentioned in
the tariff of 1916, ,chich did embrace sugar. Here
were two amendments; one to allow sugar to remain
at the old duty of 80 per cent the other to reduce it
to "a per cent.
The question was upon the adoption Of the last
amendment, which was decided in the negative
| Yeas "a, nays 112.
| Hon. Miles Taylor, Thomas Green Davidson and
John NJ. Sandidge voted yea-that is, they voted in
favor of the reduction of the duty sugar 20 per
cent, namely, from 80 to "a per cent? while the Hon.
George Eusts, Jr, voted in the negative, against
the reduction Of the duty. The amendment Of Mr.
Letcher was accordingly rejected. See pages 479 to
| 5O3.
| The question then came up on Mr. Campbell's
amendment, which amendment had omitted all refer
eace ,rhateuer to sugar On the vote, shall the bill
pass, it was decided in the afirmatiye-Yeas ll0
nays 81.
Mr.. Taylor and Mr.. sandidge voted nay Mr. Eust
voted yea Mr. Davidson absent
That is Mr. Eustis voted in favor of bill which
having omitted all alusion to sugar, of course th
duty remained before, untouched at 80 per centum
while Mr.. Taylor and Mr.. Sandidge voted against tn
bill, for what reason is not stated. Now, whethe
these gentlemen did SO vote because sugar was omit
ted, and being omitted was not made free aso is nc
mentioned.
This BILL then, with no reference in it to suga
having thus passed the House, it was sent to tn
Senate, where it was adopted, with various importan
amendments, among which was one to reduce tn
duty on sugar to % per centum. The bill then cam
back to the House thus amended The question i
the House was, shall the amendments of the Senat
be agreed to? That is shall we agree to reduce th
duty on sugar from 30 to % per centum? This wa
decided in the negatiye-yeas 63, nays l06 BIT
what is truly astonishing, both Mr.. Taylor and NJ
Davidson voted in the affirmative; that is to say, the
voted to agree with the Senate to reduce the duty
sugar to 90 per centum. Mr.. Eustis voted no, Will
Mr.. Sandidge made it convenient to be absent, havin
himself particular interest in sugar. See page 5S
A committee of conference between the two bodit
was then appointed, with Mr.. Campbell chairman Q
the part of the House, and Mr.. Hunter of Virgins
on the part of the Senate, which committee throug
Mr.. Campbell, reported to the House recommendin
the duty on sugar to be placed at "a, instead of
per eentum required by the Senate, and the repo
was agreed to by the House See page COG.
Thus it is seen that although Mr.. Taylor had mac
long speech against the reduction of the duty. tt
records of his votes is positively the other way Ho
is this, Mr. Taylor How do you explain this r
markable incongruity? Can it be possible the Cler
of the House has done SO tagrant an injustice as
have reported you and Mr.. Davidson and Mr. Sandids
incorrectly? If not, why did you and your broth
Democrats thus vote to reduce the duty on suga
while the American member was the only one WI
! voted to retain it? Come, we are impatient to he
the explanation, for your votes of greater impo
tance to MS than your speeches. AMERIoUs.