Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-07-10

on the floor. The Mills bill proposed
sixty.eight per cent and the Dingley
amendment proposed forty-one per cent.
The amendment would reduce the reve-
nue. $29 100000, If the amendment was
adopted it would amount to saving of
fifty cents for every man, woman and
child. 1t would have the effect of break
ing up the Sugar Trust, and if the DEM
ocrats voted against the proposition, the
people this fall would draw the necessary
and proper inference.
The amendment was lost SO to 105.
LONG Debate.
Houck, of Tennessee, said it made
little difference how the Republicans
voted this bill was apparently as inim-
table as the laws of the Medes and
Persians and no changes could be made
except for the accommodation of some
Democratic member from district,
where to put an article on the free list
would endanger his reelection. A duty
should be put upon sugar or it should be
put on the free list, but away with q
bounty. The American people wanted
none of it.
McComas, of Maryland, inquired OF the
Democratic members of the Ways and
Means Committee whether on March
26th they had not given hearing to Mr..
| Havemeyer, of New York, who had been
examined on the 18th of that month be-
fore the Committee on Manufactures.
A long debate followed between Breck-
inridge, Mills and McComas, in which
Breckinridge and Mills denied the charge
that certain parties had been granted a
hea, ing before the Ways and Means
Committee, and others refused.
On motion of Mills, the duty on molas-
ses, testing not above Sc degrees, was
fixed at two and three quarter cents per
gallon.
| CANNON SPRINGS A NEW AMENDMENT.
Cannon, of Illinois, offered an amend
ment substituting for the sugar schedule
as it originally appeared jim the Mills bill.
He intimated that change had been
brought about by the fact that Havemey-
er had supported Cleveland.
Reed inquired if the Chairman of the
Committee would not explain the reason
why the change had been made.
Mills retorted by inquiring why it was
that when in former Congress the
Committee had sought to make change,
the gentleman had stood by this great
cheat.
Cannon queered whether two wrongs
made right.
Mills wanted to know why it was the
gentleman stood by Havemeyer and the
Sugar Trust and all other trusts. He
had even been aroused in former Con-
crosses to accord consecration to the
measure affecting the revenue and con-
sequently the trust.
| Reed said there was a direct charge
made against the Committee that after
an interview with Havemeyer, they had
the sugar schedule changed in the in.
terest of the most prominent of these
trusts which they denounced so much
and instead of explaining the reason
which produced the change, the chair.
man of the Committee gives the House
a general declaration of how good he was,
and how bad the Republicans were. II
seemed the bill had been made up in the
interest of an avowedly favorite people
and for the purpose of effecting the sue
cess of certain Democrats. This was
not business way to control the affairs
of the country and the people would
stamp it with signal of disapproval.
Cannon's amendment was rejected.
wEBER's DRAWBACK AMENDMENTS.
Weber, of New York, offered an
amendment providing that no draw
back shall be allowed on sugar exported
from the United States. He charged
that the amended bill was in the interest
of the Sugar Trust of this country.
Weber's amendment was rejected.
He offered another, allowing draw
bracks only to be paid upon polariscopic
tests, saying that this was the last resort
of the Sugar Trust, and the gentlemen
on the other side had now an opportu-
nifty to free themselves from suspicion
which would be certain if they voted
down his proposition.
Mills replied that the Treasury officials
had authority to make polariscopic tests.
After further debate the amendment
was rejected. This concluded considera-
ton of the sugar clauses. The next
paragraph, relating to tobacco, was left
open for further action.
Nutting, of New York, voted to strike
out the starch provision pending vote
the House adjourned.