, 1890-05-22
Pending the vote tho committee arose
and the house adjourned.
TUESDAY.
The Tarin Debate Continued In the
HnuHe.

MT. toWlest OF NOttn tut'plHu. VI
fercd an amendment repeating tho to-
bacco tax, which was rejected.
Mr.. Sayors, Of Texas, offered an
amendment providing that iron and
steel cotton ties or hoops for bailing or
other purposes, not thinner that M. 20
wirc gauge, he admitted free. After an
extended discussion tho amendment was
rejected by vote OF e6 to i2i.
MIR. breckenridge. OF Arkansas, moved
to ia the duty ai As per cent. ad vulo-
rem. This wa, also lost.
Mr.. Mokgnna, of California, moved
an amendment TO tho sugar schedule,
reducing the existing schedule 33 per
cent. and retaining tho dividing line at
No. 10 instead Of No. 10, us In the pres
ent bill. lie attacked the sugar sched-
ule In the Mckinley bill umid great ap-
plnusc OH the democratic side.
Following were the main provisions Of
the amendment:
All sugars not above No, Is Dutch
Standard, all syrup of cane,
or beet juice, Melada, conccn-
trated molnsses, concentrated Mclnda,
and syrup testing by polariscope not
above 70 degrees shall pay a duty Of 0i
per cent per pound additional. sAll sug-
ars above No. ~, and not above No. l6
Dutch Standard, 70.i0o cents per pound.
All sugars above No. 10 and not above
No. ~, Dutch Standard, 0y.lOO cents per
pound. All sugar above No. ~, Dutch
Standard, 10 cents per pound. Molusscs
not testing above 81 degrees by polari-
scope 2 cents per gallon. Molassos test
ing above ~ degrees cents per gallon.
Mt. Mckenna said that his amend
nlent made reduction ON the existing
duty ON sugar Of about 50 per cent. 1t
retained the dividing line at No.
l3, instead of No. 10, and secured
to the retinesios of this coun-
try the refining Of sugar be-
tween Nos Is and III, which the pend
ing bill unpatriotically sent to foreign
reinerios, and, as contrustcd with the
Mills bill, the amendment was II reduc-
tlon. and, as contrastcd with the present
bill, was not a case OF lowering or in
creasing the rate. but Of change OF
policy.
Tnc pending bill In ali particulars, ex-
cept the sugar schedule, was strong and
brave--strong, because It was brave. In
the sugar schedule IL was timid, time
serving and weak--weak because It was
timc.serving and timid In the other
schedules the bill carried out the repub-
llcan principle. In ,ne sugar schedule
It refused TO one Industry tie republican
principle, II might be we'll for the re
publicans TO pause and consider what
they were doing as to Its practical and
political, IL not its moral, effect. The
Chicago platform enumerated the ways
and means OF reducing the revenue.
II declared that the internal revenue
system should be destroyed rather than I
that any part OF this protective system
DO surrendered. The sugar industry
was part Of the protective system. anu
II was injured by this bill. The sugar
schedule pointed TO the benefit OF buy
ing in tho cheapest market. Demo
cratic applause. Cane was not pro-
ducsd to the extent OF our wants. and
o ne could predict when 1t would be.
I democratic appiause.l 1t was to-
day n declining industry, ldemo- |
cratic applause anu had been given in. I
creased protection In this bill because II 4
was n declining industry, and yet II was
called the keystone of the arch OF pro-
lection. If the committee was right on
the position taken by It Ia its report,
the duty on wool was charge to the
consumer. Democratic applause.l The
republican party could not make sugar
n scapcgoat OF the surplus without in.
volyriE the protective system itself.
"fhc bill, he said, makes sugar con-
traband in the protective system. III
the bounty principle is correct, why not
apply II to other things3 Why not
apply Il TO tin platter democratic
laurh.er.l Why not apply 1t to linen
goods, which we did not produce. and
givo the people cheap linen TO 30 with
cheap tin and sugar? Laughter.
Why not apply IL to wool, until that
article Is produced In this country to
the extent of the peoples wants?
Democratic laughier.l Think OF tho
splendid polit tlcni effect ON the republi.
can party when II is enabled to point
with pride TO the workingmen and the
farmer sitting down to cheap break
fast In a cheap suit of clothes"
Laughter
Nj. Cannon, of Illinois, opposed the
amendment. What was the position OF
tho republican party touching the pro-
tective systemf 1t was to relieve from
uuty tnoso hrtiSies " iOroisn prOuucL
except luxurics, the ke OF which could
not be produced at home. Less sugar
was produced in this country to-day
than thirty years ago. The gentleman
from California was not happy when he
said that wool stood ON all fours with
sugar. The production Of wool last
year, under the present insufficient tar
III, was $50 600 600 pounds, and the i'm
ss n.,rh ,,s. ,ro,i,,r,d ~ no,na a. ,,,.s
imported, and the home product was
sufficient TO control the price at home
and regulate the worlds price on wool.
because he was republican, he was In
favor OF removing the revenue leech
from tho protective system and placing
sugar on the free list. He denounced
the the rcsierosl.y treaty .cs,ns with the sand.
men in California controlled tho pro-
duction Of sugar in that country. Put
sugar OH tho Tree list and goodbye to
IS, 900 600 possessed by four men of
California, who owned sugar planta-
tions in tho Sandwich Islands
Mr Price, OF Louisiana, favored the
amend a., ment and opp,osed The bill US be-
ored laborcrs Of the South.
Mr.. Morrow, OF California, supported
the Mckenns amendment on the
ground that II was the only legitimate
method OF protection. aud for the iui-
tier reason that the revenue of $50, ,O00,-
600 derived from sugar was necessary to
meet tho obligations OF tho govern mont
Mr.. Mckinley closed the discussion,
and MIR. Mckcnnn's Amendment was
rejected, ll5 to 13i, Messrs. Mokonna.
Morrow, o'Neiil. oil Pennsylvania, Har.
mer De Haven. Bartinc, Vandever,
Kerr, of Iowa, Coleman and Reyburn
voting In the affirmative.
On motion Of Mr.. Mckinley, . mum.
duoing tho oh u tydcortain building or