St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-07-08
Discussion Of a Sweet Sub
ject Develops Sharp
Repartee.
Pennsylvania Kelly and Illi-
nois Cannon do Some
Jaw-Swelling.
Mr.. Cannon Comes Out Flat
Footed Against Free
Whisky.

AntagoniStic speeches were made by
Messrs. Kelly and Cannon, two leading
Republican members. A bill was
passed providing for the purchase Of
the site of Fort Omaha, Neb., and APP
propriating 100000 for the purchase of
new site and construction of build
lngs thereon, provided that not more
than one-third of the appropriations
shall be extended for the purchase of
the site. A joint resolution was passed
selecting Leonard A. Harris, of Ohio;
John A. Martin, of Kansas, and John
T. Hartranft, of Pennsylvania, to fill
vacancies on the board of managers of
national homes for disabled volunteer
soldiers. The tariff bill was then taken
up, the pending amendment being that
offered by Mr.. Cannon on the sugar
schedule.
Mr.. Kelly, of Pennsylvania. said that
as Republican he had been surprised
to hear Mr.. Cannon make an assault
upon the Republican platform. There
was no instance in the history of the
country where bounties had been paid
to an industry. If the duties on sugar
were wrong let them be righted. The
Republican party had declared not for
the establishment of the
IMPERIAL SYSTEM OF BoUNTIES,
but for the maintenance of the Ameri-
can protective system. Mr.. Cannon had
said that protection did not develop
sugar III Louisiana. Mr.. Kelly proceed
ed to show how Louisiana from an an
nual production of 10, $4,000 pounds IN
iS64-65 had produced 303, 900, 600 pounds
In 1SS2-S3. Continuing, he said that he
had little thought that he should hear
Republican echoes of the anti-American
doctrines enunciated on the other side
Df the house. Why should Republican
voices be raised i'll SANDER OF their
party's platform, and to say that Amer
leans were incompetent to produce
sugar, when at this time science had
added p per cent to the value of sOr-
gbum cane and the beet. and when Ger
hlany and other lands were establishing
central factories for the conversion of
farmers products into sugar. Millions
Of dollars were being invested in sup
port of the sugar establishments in
Florida and California, and hundred 5
Of thousands in Kansas. Mr.. Nelson. of
Minnesota, suggested that Mr.. Kelly
was the only man who was thoroughly
Endorsed by the Chicago convention.
MIR. Kelly accepted the compliment.
The convention had Endorsed him and
he was ready to say: Lord, lettest
Thou thy servant depart in peace, for
mine eyes have seen the
GLORY OF THE REPUBLICAN, PARTY.
Mr.. Kenna,o of California. said that the
Cannon amendment had no true basis of
fact or principle. Every item in the
Mills bill could be supported for the
same reason urged to support this
amendment. 1t was opposed to the
principle Of protection and the Chicago
platform; protection was sacrificed if it
was taken from any American industry.
Were the gentlemen willing to interpret
the platform as offering a system of
pOunties to the industries of the coun-
Try? If this amendment received sub
stantial vote he would go from the house
Cannon, of Illinois, said if the Chicago
platform meant what it said, and if Mr..
Kelly alone of 60,000,000 people had the
right to conStrue it, he (Cannon) must
get off of it. If he differed with the
gentleman radically and positively, he
begged to assure him that he did it re-
specially. He was in entire harmony
with the Chicago platform, and so was
his amendment. The tariff on sugar
was revenue and not protective tariff.
He was surprised that Mr.. Kelly should
take any occasion to show that there
was an increase in the Louisiana sugar
crop. Mr.. Cannon then quoted figures
to show that in 1881 the crop was alb
normally large, and that in 1886 it was
no larger than it was ten years before.
Continuing he asked If Mr.. Kelly did
not know that since the war the
SOUTH HAD BOUNDED FORWARD
in every industry except sugar. The
sugar crop was a bastard and an in
truder and q fraud upon the protected
industries of the country. | tell the
gentleman, said Mr.. Cannon in cOnclu-
sion, in the presence of my constituents
before whom | stand for reelection, if
now or hereafter | have got to choose
between taking tax Off sugar-w which
is revenue tax Only-and taking the
tax off spirits, l will take it off sugar. l
appeal from the gentleman's cOnstruc-
ton of the Chicago platform to the plat
form itself.
Mr.. Peters, of Kansas, said he would
favor protective duty OH sugar even if
not pound was made outside of Louis
lana. 1t was the only stand for the con-
slStent protective system. 1t had been
demonstrated that the highest grade of
sugar could be made from sorghum pro-
duced in Kansas. 1t was certain crop;
it was harvested in four months after
planting; graSshopperS did not touch it:
III.
Was there any use then in talking to
Kansas farmer about taking off the pro-
tectlve duty because sugar could not be
produced in the United States. Capital
would make Kansas the first sugar pro-
ducing state if the law remained where
1t was. He begged the house
NOT TO STRIKE DOWN
his young industry, which promised so
much more relief to the agriculturists
Ha m of n
of its uncertainty. Mr.. Gear, of Iowa.
favored the amendment. Mr.. Hender-
son, of Iowa, thanked Mr.. Cannon for
his courage and ability for presenting
the views he had. Mr.. Anderson, of
Kansas, opposed the amendment.
Holmes, of Iowa, opposed the theory of
bounties aud favored putting sugar on
the free list. Ryan, of Kansas, referred
to the bright outlook of the sugar in
dustry in Kansas and opposed bounty
theory.
Mr.. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, said
the tariff must be revised. If congress
should take the the entire $50, ZOO. 600 off
sugar and 3l,000,000 off tobacco, it
would render itself absolutely incapable
of taking any burdens off the manu-
facturerS, give relief to the taxpayers
and consumers, or relieve any Just
cause of discomfort labor might have.
1t would indefinitely put off the day
for
FAIR REVISION OF THE TARIFF.
1t was therefore impossible, in the
Vlew OF the Democratic party, to take
all the duty off sugar. 1t would be i'm
possible to do it without deliberately
determining to leave the whole oues-
ton of the tariff undone. The question
presented was whether congress would
relleYe the manufacturers who had to
pay enormous duties for the crude ma