The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-01-19

represent the good people OF their state. III
would be an anomaly in legislation TO IN
siSt upon it against the opposition OF those
Senators; Just as it would be an anomaly to
retain an enormously high duty on rice Ia
product OF South Carolina) when the Sena-
tor from that State (Mr Butler) had stated
TO the Senate that he did not desire 1t to be
retained.
LoUIsIANA's POLITICAL TROUBLES.
Mr.. Chandler then branched off into
discussion of the political trouble in Loul-
siana, stating that the colored knights OF
Labor there, who undertook to get better
wages, were shot down by militia; and he
read letter from Hugh M. Wallace, editor
Of the Terre BOnne Times, rehearsing some
of these troubles, and rejecting on Mr..
Gibson.
Mr. Gibson controverted the statements
made in the letter, and resented as some'
thing which passed his understanding, the
insinuation that his colleague and himself
did not represent the good people of Loul-
siana.
Mr.. Chandler went on to critcise some of
the statements made yesterday by Mr..
Morgau, as we'll as the general position OF
the Democratic party on the tariff and
other questions.
sPooNER's STAND.
Mr.. Spooner favored the amendment anc
said that while he did not approve
Of every item in the bill, he was in
favor OF reducing the revenue on the lines
of the bIll-that was, on the line of protect
ing American industry, of increasing the
demands for American lator of build
ing ups the country, and of win
ming its comple.e independence. Mr..
Spooner turned his attention to the practi-
cal effect of the proposed legislation. There
was good reason to believe, he said, that
the growth OF sugar beet need not be con-
fined to California, but that the beet could
be grown to advantage in other states. 1t
would not be fair to that industry, or just
to the people to withdraw from the beet
sugar industry all protection. And if it
was to be protected it had TO be done either
by continuing the present duty on sugar, or
by reducing it and giving bounty to en-
courage the home product. He had
no difficulty in making choice
He was in favor of a reduction of the pres
ent duty by one half and Of the payment of
a bounty, because that would accomplish
two purposes. 1t wonld give needed pro-
lection and encouragement to the sugar
industry all over the United States and
would greatly reduce the revenue.
LOOKS LIKE DISCRIMINATION.
Mr.. Daniel inquired why sugar was the
only industry to be treated to a bounty
Why was not the same principle applied to
made in the United Statesl
Mr.. SpooAer thought that there was a
clear distinction between the cases. Sugar
occupied an exceptional position. The duty
on il had not opera cd to increase its pro-
duction in Louisiana.
Mr.. Butler sent to the clerks desk and
had read a newspaper interview with the
Kansas representatives, generally unfavor-
able to the bounty proposition, and argued
that there would be as much reason in offer
ing bounty of $5 for every head Of beef
cattle raised in the United States, and a
bounty Of 81 for ever sheep and hog. He
looked upon the proposed policy as vicious
and unjustifiable; and argued against its
constItutionality.
GROUND OF THE AMENDMENT.
Mr.. Allison stated the ground Of public
policy on which the amendment had been
reported. Having tried for a century what
effect high protective duties would have on
the production of sugar, and having found
it to be failure, it was believed u wise
thing to test the experiment of whether or
not by stimulation the necessary supply of
sugar could be produced in this country
instead of paying foreign countries from
500 600 000 to Sl30 900, 900 year for sugar
Mr.. Aldrich ask d Mr. Butler whether
he was IN favor Of protecting sugar and
rice by higher duties han were imposed on
AuJ DJuoI pIOQuCI.
Mr.. Butler replied that he was not. In
common fairness aud common honesty,
co oIgres5 ought not TO select one, two or
three articles of consumption, and strike
them do Nn, and pile up duties on other
! articles. He would have the tariff so ad-
ju>toi as (ahle raising the necessary
revenues for the government to afford
incidental protection to American indust-
ries. The discussion drifted into the ques-
ton of the relative expenses to the working
classes Of living in Europe and the Unl cd
States and was continued at some length by
Messrs. Butler, Blair and Hoar.
The debate on The amendment lasted until
5 O'Clock without iltermission, having taken
wide political range, the principal speak
ers being Messrs. Reagan, Butler, Chandler
and Spconer. During its progress long
discussion as to the constitutional power OF
Congress to give such bounties was carried
on between Messrs. Spooner and Hoar on
the affirmative side Of the question, and
Messrs. Gray, Butler, George and Reagan
on the opposite side.
At $40 o'clock a vote was taken on the
sugar bounty amendment and it was agreed
to by vote Of n to %, party lines being
maintained on it, except in the case of MIR.
Payne OF Ohio, who voted ave with the re-
publicans, and Mr. Quay Of Pennsylvania
who voted with the democrats against it,
At5:l5 o'clock Senate adi iou rned until to-
morrow.
INTERNAL REVENUE MODTIH0