Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-06-04
1t is Still the Subject Of Debate in
the Senate.
ALLISON ON COMMITTEES AMENDMENT
The State Bank Tax Repeal Bill in
the House.
SPEECHES ON 1T TO-DAY

Hoar CMass.) suggested the absence OF n
quorum. and twenty minutes were spent
waiting the presence Of the forty-three Sem
ators necessary to proceed with business.
A resolution providing for the payment OF
the expenses OF the bribery and other in
vestigating committees out Of the contin-
gent fund was adopted.
Mr.. Vest asked and obtained unanimous
consent for the consideration Of the New
York and New Jersey bridge bill. but the
morning hour expired before the bill could
be read. and Mr.. Mitchell Coregon, objected
to its further considerat ton. Then. a. 1880.
the tariff bill was taken up. the sugar
schedule being pending.
Mr.. Vests Explanation.
Mr.. Vest took the floor and made a short
explanation concerning the controverted
point in last Saturdays debate as TO the ex-
istence Of the sugar trust in 1890. Mr..
Aldrich and Mr.. Sherman had contended
that the present trust was not in existence,
and that its stock was not listed on the
New York ST 0ck board.
Mr.. Vest pTc1-Sei some authorities TO
show that S,s26.00c shares OF stock of the
sugar refining company were sold in the
market IN. New York in 1890, which at
500 per share represented over $500. 0.OoD. .ODO.
He retraoed. as on Saturday, the various
changes made in the sugar schedule OF the
Mckinley bill in 1890 as 1t passed through
the finance committee Of the Senate and
the conference. And yet" he said. when
he had concluded this bit OF history we
are taunted with being under the control
| of the sugar trust What principle could
| have induced the finance committee of the
Senate TO report duty of 40 cents on the
| 100 pounds for the benefit of the sugar
! trust? / know nothing of the influence
which could have dictated such enormous
protection. except that IL some influ-
ence unknown to us. i have the same right
to make that suggestion as Senators on the
other SIDE nave TO continually put forth
the insinuatons concerning our motives"
! Mr.. Allison on Sugar.
Mr.. Allison Qowa) followed Mr.. Vest with
an elaborate speech on the sugar schedule.
/ II was, he said, by far the most important
provision OF the bill. Ii afforded one-third
/ OF the revenue produced by the bill Ne
( sketched the history OF the schedule
through its notifications. The Jones
amendment allowed the refiners 10 bring
| in free of duty the entire sugar crop of the
present year. 1t also continued the Ha-
waiian treaty in force, so that the sugar
! trust. which practically controlled the su-
] gar plantations OF those islands. could
bring an their sugar free after this schedule
went into effect Every line OF this COM
plicated schedule seemed written IN the in
| terest OF the trust. Yet no explanation
was vouchsafed on the other side.
Effect of the Ad Nalorem Duty.
on raw and refined sugar. he said. What
was its erectg This duty was levied against
the price at the place OF purchase, not at
the ports OF export nor the port of en-
try. Sugar was produced abroad under
a complicated system Of taxation, draw
backs and bounties. and he thought the ad
Valorem duty imposed by this schedule
would distinctly exclude France from ox-
porting pound TO the United States GER
tainly Austria and practically Germany
The 40 per cent duty, based on prices rang
ing in New York. would give the sugar
trust 40 cents protection on the Too pounds.
exclusive OF the one-eighth special duty on
refined and the one-tenth cents differen-
tials. On London quotations the difference
between the price OF raw and refined sugar
ranged at about nine-tenths cents. which
would make the 40 per cent ad valorem
duty afTord a protection OF SO cents on the
100 pounds.
Mr.. Allison declared tha; according TO
numerous authorities sugar could be re-
fined cheaper here than in Germany and
some other European countries The sche-
dule practically would prohibit the importa-
ton of refined sugars. 1t was not a sche-
dule for protection. but for prohibition.
While taking away from the hardy lum-
herman every vestige of protection from
foreign competition. this bill. for the sake
OF the sugar trust. placed pTohibitory duty
on refined sugar. II was prohibitive on re-
fined and was faulty as regards protection
TO raw sugar. No amount of ingenuity no
amount OF juggling could conceal that He
contrasted the burden of a duty on sugar
with bounty. The duty, he said. amount
ed TO a per capita tax OF s. per year on
every family in the United States while the
bounty under which cane and beet growing
had been stimulated during the last four
years had cost the people less than s12-
ooo.O00.
Cost to the Consumer.
Mr.. Manderson called Mr.. Allison's at
tention TO the fact that since the bounty
system had been in operation sugar had
cost the consumer less here than In any
European country. What would be thu
effect Of the imposition Of a duty upon
the price OF sugars. he asked. Mr. Allison
replied that II would raise the cost OF
sugar to the consumer at least 1-2 cents
a pound. The schedule. he continued, IL
IL were TO stand, should go into effect the
day the bill passed Otherwise Il would
give the sugar producers in advanced
January l, 1895, and enable the refners
to buy six months supply of raw sugar
in the open markets OF the world. hold IL
until the duty went into effect and then
take the amount OF the duty out OF the
pockets of the consumer.
Mr.. Jones Replies.
Mr.. Jones (Ark.) replied TO Mr.. Allison
He maintain ed that Senators on the repub-
lican side had persistently misrepresented
the prices of raw and refined sugars in
their calculations as to the protection &C
corded refined sugars by the duty OF 40 per
cent ad valorem. When Mr. Allison took
the difference between raw and refined sug-
ar in New York TO show that 40 per cent
would be equivalent to a differential Of 40
cents a hundred in favor of refined Mr.
Jones said he was obviously unfair because
the one cent difference in the price OF raw
and refined sugar in New York was largely
due 20 duty OF one-half cent per pound
levied by the Mckinley law on refined sug-
ar. Besides the 40 per cent was levied not
at New York, but at the place Of purchase.
How about the difference Of nine-tenths
of a cent in London?" asked Mr.. Allison.
Mr.. Jones replied that he found no such
quotations in London. He produced some
London quotations of the price of German
sugars, raw and refined. They showed 8
per cent of refined sugar was equivalent to
$3.15 per hundred pounds. and OF raw 10
$2.12 These latter were what were known
as ''sS beet" The German system of grad
ing sugars differed from that I'm this cOun-
try. Raw sugars were graded not by the
polariscope test by an analysis. Raw
sugars termed ''Ss beet therefore meant
that 100 hundred pounds of such sugar
would produce eighty-eight pounds of re-
fined sugar. This must be taken into con-
sideration I'm calculating the protection given
the refiners under this schedule.
The German system Of grading raw sugar.
was based on their capacity to yield reinec
sugar,