The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-06-09
Republican Northern Senator's Raise tbs
Old Cry Of SeCtiOnaism.
mr.. HILLS REPLIES TO The CHARGES.
Several Paragraphs in the Agricultural
Schedule Disposed of-An Agreement
to Five-Minute Debate on Bill.

IL so as TO simply instruct the judiciary
Committee to inquire and report as soon
as may be whether It Is expedient that
the claim be forthwith relinquishcd and
put at rest.
In the course Of the debate which fol-
lowed Mr.. Berry said that the resolution
TO a certain extent committed the senate
10 the idea that IL thought that the claim
Of the Government against me stanford
estate ought to be relinquisned, and he
( did not wish to commit himself 10 any
such proposition.
Mr.. Hoar said that he did not under
stand that the resolution committed the
Senate 10 anything. Ii was purely re-
solution OF inquiry.
Mr. Allen Q'op., Neb) moved to lay
the resolution on the table, and that mo-
ton was agreed TO, yeas, "A; nays -;
as follows:
Yeas-Alen. Berry Blackburn. Cockreli,
Coke, Daniel. Faulkner George. Harris,
Hunton, Jarvis. Jones ArkJ. Kyle, Nc
Laurin. Martin, Mills. Mitchell lNis)'
Vest. and White-24.
Nays-Alessrs. Allison. Carey, Chandler.
/ Cullom, Davis, Dixon, DOlph, dubois, FRY,
Hawley. Higgins. Hoar, Mcmillan, Per
kins. Platt. Snoup, Teller, Voorhees,, and
Washburn-lJ.
.HE TARIFF BIiL.
The tariff bill was then taken up. and
Mr.. CuiiOm delivered prepared speech
against the bill. Mr.. CullOm closed at
noon, and then for some time n desultOry
talk, which was ended my Mr. Washourn
with the remark that there was a great
loss of time in speeches on the principle
of protection, and he would Ike 20 see II
brought to "A reasonable termination. He,
therefore, asked that the further debate
on the agricultural schedule snail De
under the tive-minute rule. There was no
objection, and IL was SO ordered.
Mr.. Harris gave notice that he would.
] Il "a
| same RUE applied to the succeeding three
sections of the bill down to the wool
schedule.
The Senate came 10 the practical ques-
ton Of voting on the bin by paragraphs,
the first question being on paragraph lsO'
! as follows.
/ Buclwheat, corn or maize. cornmeal,
/ oats. rice. rice flour. wheat. and wheat
/ flour, 20 per cent. al valorem, and oat-
meal. II per cent. al va.Orem; but each
/ Of the above products shall be admitted
/ free Of duty from any country which
/ imposes no import duty on the ilke
/ products when exported from the United
/ States. Agreed to-83 10 %.
After several amendments had been re-
/ jected by the same vote, the next para
/ graph, No l9l. barley and barley pearted
+ patent or hulled, p per cent. ad valoremi
| barley malt. So per cent. ad vaorem,
was taken up. The amendment OF the
Finance Committee was to increase those
rates 10 80 ana 70 per cent.
After remarks by Senators Higgins,
! Washburn and Chandler, an amendment
/ offered by Mr.. Washburn TO restore the
! rates on barley to those under existing
| laws was rejected-yeas, D; nays, 2,
and the committee amendments We're
| agreed to.
The next paragraph was 192-macaroni,
| vermicelI, and similar preparations, -
| per cent. ad valOrem. The committee
! amendment was TO make ii 20 per cent.
! Mr. Chandler moved 10 make IL TWO
| cents a pound. the present rate Re-
/ jecte committee amendment was
The next paragraph was 1e3 as to
/ rice. The bill. as 1t passed the House,
! and rs IL was rel Crtel from the Finance
| committee. made the duty On cleaned rice
! l-2 cents q pound, on uncleaned rice
l cent and on rice -four and rice meal
/ one-quarter cent a pound. and on PADDY
/ "a cents a pound. Mr. Jones who had,
/ on behalf Of the Finance committee Of
! fe-ed an amendment reducing the rate on
/ uncleaned rice 10 81 cents a pound. ana
| on paddy TO IL cents a pound. withdrew
/ that amendment, which was thercup)n
/ renewed by Mr.. E'llsOn Rep.. la who
| explained. and advocated 1t. ard was fol-
/ lowed in the same line by Alr. Perkins
| Rep.. CALI Arguments in favor of the
/ amendments were also made by tLe
New Hampshire Senator'S Gollinger and
Chandler. The amendment was rejected
without division. Allison made an ar-u-
/ ment against the rice duties as being
too high. He admitted that they We're
lower than the rates on the Mckinley act,
but still, as compared with the other
articles on the agricultural schedule. the
rates were nearly double.
THE "MENDIcANTs" FROM LOUISIANA.
A suggestiye question put by Mr. Hale,
brought from Mr. Allison the statement
that the high duties on rice IN the Nc
Kinley act, had been put on at the re-
quest Of Southern senators.
And yet, he added. the two senators
from Louisiana have stoadfastly voted
against any amendment 10 the agricuItu,
raj schedule that would give increased
protection to the products Of northern
farms. But when the two products Of
sugar and rice are reached-products or
southern States-we find eXorbitant duties
sustained by them and by all the SEN
ators on the other side.
Mr. Hale also made some bitter comments
upon the "mendcants" from Louisiana
and other southern States. who had voted
to put lumber on the free list, while
sugar had 10 be highly prOtected-a pro-
duct that was "suuunded by an atmOs-
phere of contamination and corruption
Mr.. Manderson pointed out the susSes-
tive comparison although comparisons,
he said, were not only 0dious by odor-
iferOus) Of So per cent duty on rice; 80
per cent on barley. and nothing on wheat.
BLANCHARD RlsENTs THE REMAHK.
Mr.. Blanchard resented Mr. Haie's re-
marks as To southern senator's being
"mendicants" for high rates Of duty on
had been under the law Of 1883. S2.2J per
hundred pounds; under the Mckinley bill,
as il passed the House, IL was yl.D.
Mr.. Dolph (Ore) moved 10 apply 10 rice
the same provision as was applied 10
wheat oats, etc. admitting il free of
/ duty from countries that 90 not impose
an import duty on rice from the United
States.
He argued that if such rule was good
| for wheat ii was also good for rice and
sugar. r,-,.,- .,,,,,
| rent as bringing the Senate face 10 race
| $50 that no senator could wriggle out ol
il or sqiirm out of ~ with the difference
between the treatment OF a northern
Industry purely agricultural and Cf
southern industry purely agriculture a. az ~ ~
challenged the Democratic senators 10 ~
nlain why there should be such as
elimination. -oi..,ed
yeas, l Qeffer); nays, a. -. nov,o-
MIR Hale read the names OF the Dig- DeIno-
cratic senators who voted on MI DolPI . .
amendments and the names or the SAINT
seniors who had voted aye on eAacty
the same provision in the paragrapn "a. a.
10 bnckwheat. oats. etc. Within tWentys =
four hours. he said the senators nae
turned tai" and voted the other way
THE people Of the North he SAID; W Woulu
take account OF that matter Seha'o,i
on the other side were renewing the rH oru
story of thirty-fve years ago, ana W., WI,
driving the northern people 10 d yrae' pyne
hevond which no more could be o1Ine' nre
,y.sa dav ~ firal reckoning was not mere
t. ans 20 Sso,nevhere else. The people OF the
North would take a stern account OF ,ns
stnr ro.tn and would call the Democratic
Marty 10 a severe reckoning
,,u,s nfpf les sH.RPLY TO EALE-