Los Angeles herald., 1890-05-21
AT LOGGERHEADS.
Opposition to the Mckinley
Tariff Bill.
McKenna Attempts to Amend
the Sugar Clause.
A Strenuous Kick Against the Pro-
posed Bounty System.
The House Prolongs It's Session to Late
Hour and Adjourns Amid
Great Confusion.
Associated Press Dispatches.

WASHINGTON, May 20.-The house
went into committee of the whole on the
tariff bill.
Cowles OF North Carolina, offered an
7 en,sc scndment repeating the tobacco tax
Rejected,
Sayres OF Texas, offered an amend
ment providing that iron and steel cot.
ton ties, or hoops for baling or other
purposes, not thinner than number &c
wire gauge, be admitted free. After
an extended discussion, the amendment
was rejected, 96 to 1874.
Breckenridge OF Arkansas, moved to
fix the duty at As per cent. ad valorem
Lost
McKenna (republican) of California
moved an amendment to the sugar sched
ule, reducing the existing schedule
33 per cent, retaining the dividing line
at Is instead of 16 as in the present bill.
He attacked the sugar schedule in the
Mckinley bill amid great applause on
the democratic side.
McKenna's Sugar Schedule.
The details of McKenna's s amendment
were as follows:
All sugars not above No. 13, Dutch
standard, in color; all syrups of cane, or
beet juice, or concentrated molasses,
testing by polariscope not above rs de-
grees. shall pay duty of ninety
four-hundredths of a cent per pound,
and for every additional degree, or frac-
ton of degree, three-hundredths of a
cent per pound additional; all sugars
above No. 13, and not above No. Is,
Dutch standard, 1.79 cents per pound !;
all sugars above No. Is, and not above
No. 20, Dutch standard, 1.99 cents per
pound; all sugars above No. 20, Dutch
standard, 2.19 cents per pound !;
molasses testing not above 5S degrees by
polariscope, 2 cents gallon; molasses
testing above So degrees, cents a
gallon.
McKenna's Argument.
McKenna said his amendment made a
reduction on the existing duty on sugar
of about 33 per cent. 1t retained the
dividing line at 13, instead Of Is, and
secured to refners in this country the
refining of sugar between 13 and Is,
which the pending bill unpatriotically
sent to foreign refiners. AS contrasted
with the Mills bill, the amendment was
|
| present bill, it was not>a case of lower
ing or increasing rates, but of change
of policy. The pending bill in all par
ticulars, except the sugar schedule, was
brave and strong-strong, because it
was brave. In the sugar schedule it was
timid, time-serving and weak-weak be-
cause it was time-serving and timid. In
the other schedules the bill carried out
the republican principle. In the
sugar schedule the bill refused to
one industry the republican principle.
1t might be we'll for the republicans to
pause and consider what they were do
ing, as to it's practical and political
effect, if not to it's moral effect. The
Chicago platform enumerated ways and
means Of reducing the revenue, and de-
clared that the internal revenue system
should be destroyed rather than any
part of the protective system should be
surrendered. The sugar industry, part
of the protective system, was surren-
dered by this bill. The sugar
schedule pointed as directly as
ever the free-trader pointed to
the benefit of buying in the cheapest
market. Democratic applause Wool
was not produced to the extent of our
wants, and no one could predict when it
would be. Democratic applause.
Wool-growing was today declining in
dustry democratic applausel, and had
been given increased protection in the
bill because it was declining industry,
and yet it was called the keystone of the
arch of protection. If the committee
was right on the position taken by it in
it's report, the duty on wool was a charge
on the consumer Democratic ap-
plause.l The republican party could
not make sugar the scapegoat OF the
surplus, without involving the protective
system itself.
The Bounty Principle Derided.
Continuing his address, McKenna
said: If the bounty principle is correct
why not apply it to other things. Why
not apply it to the tin-plate [laughterl
and save at once (if the committee was
right; he was only repeating its reasons,
not endorsing them) 81 100000 in reve-
nue. and taxation? Why not apply it to
linen goods, which we did not produce,
and give the people cheap linen to go
with cheap tin and cheap sugar?
Laughter Why not apply it to wool
until that article was produced in this
country to the extent of the peoples
wants? Democratic laughter. Think
of the splendid political effect upon the
republican party when it will be enabled
to point with pride to the workingman
and farmer sitting down to cheap
breakfast in cheap suit of clothes.
Laughter.]
Cannon Opposes the Amendment.
Cannon, of Illinois, opposed the
amendment. What was the position of
the republican party touching the pro-
tective system To relieve from duty those
articles of foreign production, except
luxuries, the like of which could not be
produced at home. Less sugar was pro-
duced in this country now than thirty
years ago. The gentleman from Califor-
MIA was not happy when he said wool
stood on all fours with sugar. The pro-
duction of wool last year, under the
present insufficient tariff, was 250, 900 900
pounds, and the import was 120,O0O,OOO
pounds. Twice as much was produced
at home as was imported, and the home
product was sufficient to control the
price at home and regulate the worlds
price OF wool Because he was repub-
lican he was in favor OF removing the