Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-07-10
dawes, George,

Tia bill was then pissed.
After passing a few bills Of local and mi.
nor interest, aud spending some time IN ex-
ecuiive session, the senate. at D o'clock, adj
iouned.
House OF Representatives.
Alter Mr. HemphiIi Of South Carolina,
had made an earnest bat unsuccessful effort
10 cal up the District Of Columbia business
the House went into COMMITTEES OF the
Whole (Mr. Springer In the chslr) on Tho
tariff bin. the pending question being on the
Cannon amendment
Mr.. Wilkinson, Of Louisiana, desired TO
correct what he declared 10 be mlssiatements
made by the gentlemen on the other side 10
the effect that the sugar industry OF Louisiana
was a lsnguishing industry. An industry
which las, year had produced 340,0O0,00
pounds could hardly be termed alanguisbiDg
industry. IL had been called n corpse, bat
II that were 80 it was the liyeliest corpse
the world had ever beard OF. lie quoted
and denied the assertion Of the gentleman
from Iowa (&r. Holmes) that q gigantic
sugar trust was gotten up for the benefit
OF 1900 planters Of Louisiana. Those
twelve hundred planters, who employed
between two and three hundred thou
sand persons, Instead OF being in with
the sugar trust were competitors OF the
sugar trust, aud instead OF helping 10
put the price up were helping 70 put II
down. In substantiatIon OF this view he
quoted from the testimony taken before the
Committee on Manufactures 10 the effect
that the Louisiana planters had reduced the
price OF sugar, and he was further substsn-
tiared by Mr.. Buchanan, OF New jersey,
who ne member Of that committee stated
that the trust was unirlendly to Louisiana
producers.
The Committee Of the Whole has rejected
by a vote OF 81 to 10S Mr. Cauuon's amend
ment placing on the free list sugars not above
No. 1G. Dutch standard, and reducing the
rates on other grades, and granting bounty
to the producers OF sugar.
Mr.. Dingley. OF fiair", offered an amend.
ment fixing the rate OF duty on su -ir not
above Ne. 10 Dutch standard, testing not
above 10. az seventy one hundredths OF a
cent per pound with an additional duty OF
two one hundredths OF cent per pound for
each additional degree or fraction Of de-
gree. lie stated that the rate proposed by
him was exactly one hall OF the existing
rate, and n his proposition was adoDed he
would follow II with amendments making
similar reductions In other grades. Rejected
after debate by vote OF SO to los.
Mr. Weber. OF New York, offered an
amendment. which, while not interfering
with The rates OF duty proposed by the bit,
provides Tor a new classification Of grades.
Tins rehabilitation. be commended, would
result IN putting down practices that had
been INDUCED IN by sugar.rcfners, whose
great operations were monopOhstic long
before they we're combined In the sugar
trust.
This was also rejected after somewhat
heated debate, IN which Mr.. McCOmas. OF
Maryland charged aud the two Breckin-
ridges denied that the majority OF the Ways
and Means COMMITTEE had given hearings
upOn the sugar schedule 10 members OF the
sugar trust aud had Immediately thereafter
changed the sugar schedule IN their bill TO
the advantage OF reforrs. A vote was taken
In sOme confusion and resulted: Yeas, Go;
nays. IS.
ON mollon OF Mr.. Mills the duty on mo-
'asscs testing not above 90 degrees was fixed
at y cents per gallon.
Mr. Cannon, OF Illinois, offered an amend
ment substituting for the sugar schedule the
sugar schedule as 1t originally appeared In
the Minis bill.
Another long debate resulted upon this
amendment, after which II was lost.
Mr.. Weber, Of New York, offered an
amendment providing that no drawback
shsll be allowed on sugar exported from the
United States. lie said that the original bill
had confined this provision. and he was for
a time at q loss to account for its disappear
ance. But he knew now that on a certain
day after the original bill bad been intro
duced Mr.. Ilyemeyer, OF New York, APP
pearcd, aud shortly after that the changed
hill came before the House. He charged
that the amended bill was in the interest Of
the sugar trust Of this country. The effect
Of his amendment would be TO do away with
the other end Of the line, which promoted
fraud upon toe revenues OF the Government.
Il was impossible for sugar TO he exported
upon the basis OF q drawback equal to the
amount OF the original duty paid.
MIR. Wober's amendment was rejected, and
he offered another requiring drawba to be
paid only upon polariscopic tests. saying
that this was the last resort Of the sugar
trust, and gentlemen on the other side had
now an opportunity 10 free themselves from
suspicion, which would become certainty IL
they voted down his proposition.
Mr.. Mills replied that the Treasury officials
already had authority to make polariscopic
tests.
After further debate the amendment was
rejected. This concluded the consideration
OF the sugar clause.
The next paragraph, relating 10 tobacco,
was. upon Mr.. Mllls's motion, lett open FOR
future action.
Mr.. Nuttlng, OF New York, moved to
strike out The starch provision.
Mr.. Boutelle supported the motion in an
argument declaring that IN his district tins
paragraph dealt most serious blow. Pend
ing vote on the motion the House, at z.
NJ, adjourned.
Ii is stated that between twenty and thirty
members are preparing to speak upon the
wool schedule when IL shall De reached.