National Republican., 1883-02-16
THE uOnSE.

Mr.. Williams submitted tho conference re-
port on the japanese indemnity fund bill.
The effect of the bill as agreed to in confer
ence is to return to Japan the original sum
received from that government, $7s5,000,
without interest, to pay the officers and crews
of the Wyoming and the Ia Kiang $4,000,
and to cancel all the bonds comprising the
Japanese indemnity fund.
Mr.. Rice, of Massachusetts,, dissented from
the report on the ground that interest should
be paid.
Mr.. WILLIAMS explained that as the bill
passed the house IL returned to Japan the sum
of $1,516364. The senate struck down the
sum to $7S5,000, contending that the govern
ment should never pay any interest, and after
eight months of conference the committee on
the part of the house had been compelled to
yield. This was the last action to be taken
on the bill. 1t must be passed now or it might
fall into the rut again, and he feared that if it
| did so it would go back into the same dis
| graceful list with the old French spoilation
claims. He regretted that congress could not
return the last dollar and last cent of the sum
| with its natural accretions, and wash its hands
clean from this enormity. But finding that
this was impossible, he felt that it was the
duty of the house to accept the proposition Of
| the senate.
Mr.. Rice made strong plea to the house to
| reject the conference report. The United
| States was seeking to vindicate its honor. Its
! honor was not vindicated by returning to
Japan half of the property which belonged to
that nation, and putting the other half into
| its own pockets. He did not think that any
other bill could be passed this session, but
when the United States acknowledges that it
! was in the wrong, it could not atone for that
| wrong by giving back one-half of the sum
which was wrongfully retained in the treas
ury. That would be disgrace.
Mr.. Washburn said that in view of tho past
history of this case, he would vote for the
conference report as the best he could get,
though he would have wished that it had pro-
| vided for the payment of interest.
| Mr.. Kasson, while regretting the position
taken by the senate, argued in behalf of the
report Of the conference committee.
Mr.. Blount took the same view and called
attention to the fact that the bill did not
bind future congresses from doing what was
seemly and right in the premises.
Mr.. Cox, of New York, urged the adoption
of the report as being step in the right di-
rection of doing justice to Japan.
Mr.. Dunnell claimed that it was unworthy
of great nation like the United States to
compromise its obligations. To attempt to
pay back n part of sum of money that was
due to another government was simply dis
graceful.
Messrs. Van Voorhis and Moore took the
same view, the latter claiming that as there was
a universal howl against Tennessee for repu-
dating half her debt, it should be also raised
against the United States which, in this mat
ter, was in the same position.
Mr.. McNlillin protested against the gentle
man slandering his own state.
The conference report was then agreed to
1872 to 27
THE NEW SEATS.
Mr.. Blackburn, from the committee on
| rules, reported resolution in regard to adj
ditional desk room for the increased member
ship of the next congress, and it was laid over
| for future action.
The house then (at 12;2O) went into COM
mittoe of the whole, Mr.. Burrows in the
chair, on
THE TARIFF BILL,
and the consideration of schedule (sugar)
was entered upon.
Mr. Van Voorhis moved TO strike out the first
paragraph, Imposing duty of l.25 cents per erpound
| on all sugars not above No. 49, Dutch standard,
lank bottoms, &C., testing by the polariseope not
| above 70 degrees, and 400 of u cent additional
for every additional degree or fraction OF degree,
He stated that he did this with the purpose of
moving TO place sugar on the free list.
MIR. Kasson said that his sense of Justice would
prevent him from putting sugar on the free list
until congress by contemporAneous legislation
should provide for compensation for the plants
which congress had encouraged men TO establish
In the sugar producing regions
| Mr.. Bayhe advocated the notion contending
that the article of sugar did not iall within the
principle of protection; that principle was that
whenever this country could produce n supply of
an article equal TO the demand that industry
should be encouraged II, on the contrary, the
United States could not produce supply equal Ia
the demand, then the principle of protection
iuied, aud congress was not bound 10 bolster up a
failing industry and tax the people of the whole
country because the domestic manufacture could
not secure a sufficient production.
Mr., Vance, of North Carolina, Are you In favor
of putting salt on the free list.
Mr. Bayne. We can produce all the salt the
world wants
Mr. Cox advocated the motion as being in favor
of the great mass Of consumers and as reducing
the revenue.
Mr., Kelley expressed the hope that the house
would see that an adequate protection would be
given to the capital invested In the production OF
sugar under the auspices Of natl ona legislation.
He wanted Il duty on sugar which would protect
the freedmen of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and
Alabama against the competition of thrty-two
countries from which sugar was imported aud
whose laborers were III. paid and ill-fed coolies
or slaves. In the name of the cause of protection
and IN the name OF Pennsylvania, living aud his
torica, he protested against the suggestions just
thrown out by one of her representatives on this
floor Beginning with Benjamin Franklin and
his eompeels, passing through the teachings OF
Matthew Carey down TO the late Henry Q. Carey,