The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-07-25

terms. Mr.. Caffrey declared that the Presi-
dent was exonerated from the charges
made against him by Mr.. German. The
very evidence adduced by Mr.. German, he
said, justified the President i'm writing the
letter he had. There was absolutely no
truth in the allegation that Mr. Cleveland
had violated the functions OF his Office In
giving his views TO the chairman of the
ways and means committee. If the MEM
bers of the finance committee had de-
nounced the bill as they did in saying that
certain features Of the bill involved party
surrender, how was IL wrong for the Presi-
dent TO charge ''perfidy and dishonor?"
MORE SECRETS TOLD.
Since the secrets of the past were to be
divulged he would not longer keep in the
dark the secrets of his own prison house.
The Louisiana Senators had been made the
target for the sings and arrows OF tariff
reformers The time had come for him TO
tell his story. He was at a little conference
at which were present, among others,
Messrs. Brice and German. 1t was decided
at that conference that 40 per cent. on raw
and 90 per cent on refined sugar was
proper.
II took that schedule to the finance COM
mittee and gave it to Senator JONES'" he
continued. "Mr. Jones' after a calculation,
pointed out that in the differential allowed
greater than the Mckinley law. L there
upon withdrew il. After further consulta-
ton L presented another schedule, placing
L cent on raw and Us on refined. So IL re-
mained for some time, when / was adrnon-
1shed by Mr. German and Mr.. Brice that
this second schedule meant free sugar. Mr..
Jones told me that the sugar refining in
terestS would favor free sugar if that
schedule was insisted on. He wanted me
TO accept 40 per cent. on raw
and one-eighth differential on refined. That
schedule was not acceptable to me or the
sugar growers ana | want the country TO
know that it was dictated by the refining
11 Cr tod wit n
understanding that the bounty provision
for 1884 should stand. l call on Senators
Vest and Jones to say whether what have
said is not true
Neither the Arkansas nor the Missouri
Senator made reply to this appeal He con-
tinued to describe the subtle methods that
were then employed to emasculate the
sugar schedule and defeat the bill. The
ways of the Senator from New York (fr
HID were past hnding out. Upon his mo-
ton TO make the schedule go into effect on
the passage of the bill some of the Dem
ocrats jumped the track and violated their
agreement. That was the first time fat tn
was broken with The Louisiana Senator'S
What subtle force was il, he asked, that
sought to strike down the sugar agricultur-
list and to throw it's protecting wing about
the gigantic sugar refining interests? He
referred in sarcastic tCnes to Mr.. Cor
mans statement on yesterday that, how
ever distasteful duty sugar was to
himself and others, they knew that the
two votes of the Louisiana Senators were
necessary to pass the bill.
You have told us the attitude of every
body else. Will you tell what the atti-
tude of the Louisiana Senators would nave
been if sugar had been placed on the free
Hst?' asked Mr.. Teller.
Frankly" replied Mr.. Caffery, 'T will
say that if sugar had been placed on the
free list we would have voted against the
bill"
Mr. Caffery proceeded to discuss the
sugar schedule of the Mckinley bill, and
this brought out al animated, though tech
nical, debate on sugar making between
Senator'S Aldrich, Gray, Caffery and Alli-
son. The latter stated that 1T had been as
serted that about Sc per cent. of sugars
grown in Louisiana would receive the ben
eft of the one-eighth differential Mr.. Caf-
fiery said the percentage would be about
"A. Mr. Cafferys speech was still in prog
resS when, at 305 o'clock, Mr.. COckrell Sc
cured recognition to move adjournment,
which motion was adopted and the Senate
adjourned.