New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-08-22
@tb Orleans laiIg Grssftrt.
DoUE1E SD -.
NEW ORLEANS:

- ID.
-----
SATURDAY MORNING, AUGUST 20, 1857.
S fcosnu KIoArEp.1
Hon. Miles Tsylor-Ae voted In Congress to
Reduce the Duty on Sugar.
: iz, s.------a> - -,
Mes,rs, Eds.--When Representative is sent to
Congress Ii Il expected Of him to show by his votes
ss well ~ bis 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 be
sctuaIy voted, along with Thomas Green Davidson
and John H. Sandidge, in favor Of two separate pro
positions to reduce the duty on sugar. while George
Eusts, Jr., was the only member from Louisiana who
voted to keep the duty at 80 per cent.
Mr. Taylor ought to explain these votes, for the
journal Of the House Of Representatives does really
80 declare them. Let Us examine the record.
The bill to amend the tariff Of 1916 coming up on
its engrossment, Mr.. Campbell, chairman of the
Committee Of Ways and Means, moved an amend
ment to exempt 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. Ietcher, of Virginia, moved an amend
ment to Mr.. Campbell's amendment making reduc-
ton of 20 per cent on all the articles mentioned in
the tariff Of 1916, aohich 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 IA, nays liz.
To,,1 oyd
John N. Sandidge voted yea-that is, they voted in
faver Of the reduction Of the duty on sugar 20
cent namely from 80 to "a per cent; while the Hon.
George Eustis Jr., voted in the negative, against
the reduction Of the duty The amendment of Mr.
Letcher was accordingly rejected See pages 479 to
SOB.
The question then came up on Mr.. Campbell's
amendment, which amendment had omitted all refer
ence tchateuer to sugar On the vote shall the bill
pass, it was decided in the affirmative Yeas ITO,
nays 81.
MI. Taylor and Mr.. Sandidge voted nay Mr.. Eustis
voted yea; Mr.. Davidson absent.
That is, Mr.. Eustis voted in favor Of bill which
having omitted all alusion to sugar, Of course the
duty remained before untouched at 80 per centum,
while Mr.. Taylor and MI. Sanddge voted against the
DILL, for what reason is not stated. Now, whether
these gentlemen did SO vote because sugar was omit
ted and being omitted was not made free also is not
Jentioned.
H. s."as AZ ua,aa :. ,.,s sout =. ~
sa'.. 80 - ~. 80
ena' 80 - "as l,", WIN vA',ous
a.no ~ 'nlon "as une ~ leuuoe ene
uusy ~ " ~ pe' ee'f'ai ine oil 'hen 'a'lle
s.as. = ~ Nus anenueu. ihe ques.lon ~
1ne HOUSE WAS snaii 'ne aleliu1el1s u Tue 'ena'e
ne agreed tos inat ~ sna we agree ~ reuuee 'ne
outy Oh sugar IRON oo 10 20 per eensuint lnis was
decided ~ me negatiVe-yeas % nays lVo' bn1
wnat IS Truly Astonishing, potn Mr. laylor ana MI
,o+a5 IN orao ,;th Tho eanoto IN red,oa tho Inty IN