The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-24

u W11m Debate on tho PrOpOest1Nu 70
Kscoursxe Beet Sugar industry.
OLYMPIA. Feb. .. Especial. The Lud-
den sugar bounty bill started a lengthy
debate in the house this afternoon in
which the orators ranged through the
fold of political economy aud insti''
tuted . comparison of the merits
of the Republican and Democratic
policies relative to the encouragement
of new industries. The members
did not divide on party lines, however.
with reference to the bill. On both sides
Of the question there were members OF all
three parties represt nted in the house.
The chief contest was over Gilman's
motion to strike out one of the bounty
granting sections. Gilman was most Wig
orous in his opposition to the bill, declar-
ing that it would not benefit the farmers
- claimed, but would cause to
rise up in this state q sugar
king similar to Claus Spreckels, whose
clutch ON the Sandwich islands had de-
stroyed government He prophesied in
fervid defamation that if the measure was
passed and was allowed to continue in
force for the torn of five years, as pro-
vided in the bill, at the end of that time
an overpowering lobby would be found At
the capital to secure . continuance OF the
bounty and that the incubus would be
kept on the state forever.
Gilman's speech stirred Ludden to an
intense degree, and in imprisoned tones
he resented the imputation that . sugar
obby could corrupt the state. Both
.peaksrs were applsuded. Gilman had
expressed surprise that any Democrats
conld be found favoring . measure that
was % much 1t variance with the party's
revenue reform principles, and Mays re-
piled to this portion Of the King county
Democrats speech, protesting an undying
opposition to the Republican policy of
protection except in cases like this in
which it was proposed to held the farmers
OF Eastern Washington.
Judson attacked the bill and declared
that bounties were a stencil in the nostrils
Of the people. Referring to Ludden's de-
claration that no danger need be feared
five years hence from the corrupting intin-
enccs Of u suanr lobby. Judson described
Ludden as . new member who would
know more later on. He called attention
To the numerous lobbyists around this leg
isiature as an evidence OF what might be
expected in years to come.
An amendment to limit the bounty pay.
ments to 500, 600 year having been voted
down. Roth declared that the rejection OF
the limitation had caused him to decide Ia
vote against the bill, as he now believed
there was job in it. Lndden resented
this imputation also, and Roth hastened
TO state that he did not intend to charge
Ludden with having any improper motive
Hooie expressed the fear that the bill
would greatly increase the Indebtedness oil
the state and endeayo:ed unsuccessfuly t.
have the bounty cut to 4 cent pound. He
advised the members. and especially the
Republicans. to consider how the people
would view the appropriation OF an fndeti
mite sum that might become of great size
The Webb proviso that was finally added
TO the bin suspends its operation
until congress repeats the Federal suga,
bounty law. An effort Will be made e
have the proviso rejected by the senate
The friends OF the bill did not all under
stand its effects when it was voted on in
the house.