The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-06-05
Both These Still Subjects Of Prolonged
Debates In the Senate.
PRESENT COMPLICATED SCHEDULE.
Senator Allison on Committes's Amend.
ment and MIR. Jones Technical Reply.
Confusing Controversies.

|
stated hour Of meeting to secure quo
rum. The first piece OF business dcne was
the passage OF a joint resolution ap-
proprating $4,000 for the expenses OF
Inquiries and investigations ordered by
| the Senate.
On schedule time all pending business
was put aside. and the tariff bill was taken
up. The amendments to paragraph lS2,
offered by the Finance Committee. chang
| ing the time when the repeal Of the sugar
| bounty is to take effect from May l.
! 1894. to january !, 1S9j, were agreed TO.
Subsequently, by unanimous consent,
that action was reconsidered. and the
amendments still remain open.
THE vEsT-ALDRIcH CONTROVERSY.
Mr.. Vest recalled his controversy with
| Mr.. Aldrich before adjournment on Sat
urday, when Mr. Aidrich asserted posi-
| lively, If not aggressiVely," that there
| was no sugar stock certificates In the
| market in 1890. Mr.. Vest fortified his own
| statement by reading from an almanac
of 1891, showing that in the year 1890
| l,062 900 shares OF sugar stock certincates
| had been sold in New York. And IL was
| while these large sales were being made
| with fluctuations Of 30 per cent, that
the Mckinley act was being manipulated
| in Congress. He went on to show from a
| duty or about 10 per cent, when the bill
| was ITSl reported from the committee
| on Ways and Means. went up by jumps
| to 70 cents per hundred pounds, the re-
| duccd i'm conference TO 90 cents-the exist
| ing rate. And yet" said ne contemptu-
ously "our friends on the other side taunt
| us with being under the control Of the
sugar trust. And they ask us constantly
| for the principle on which certain things
| have been done l would like to under
| stand what principle entered into That
sort of legislation. | would like to know
! on what principle that change took place.
| | know nothing else that could have
caused IT, except some influence unknown
10 the public.
AS Mr. Aldrich was not present when
Mr.. Vest spoke there was no reply.
Mr. Allison took the floor and argued
against the repeal Of the sugar bounty
| aud against pacing sugar on the dUu-
! able list.
lie offered to yield the floor to Mr..
| Vest and to let him inform the Senate
as to what would be the average rate
! Of duty per pound on sugar for consump-
tion. under the present complicated sche-
Mr. Vest stated it at % cents on the
Il hope" said Mr.. Allison, that the
senator from Missouri will at some time
state the process by which he arrives at
| that conclusion"
There will be no trouble about that"
Mr.. Vest said. That will be done
Mr.. Jones (Ark), also stated that
! there was no dimculty about arriving
at the conclusion stated by Mr. Vest
Mr.. Teller suggested that the explana-
ton should be made for the beneht or
| the senators who confessed their in
ability TO understand the question, and
| Mr.. Jones said he would do so.
mR. ALLIsos's AEGUMENT.
| Mr.. Allison proceeded with his argu-
ment. He declared that the sugar sche-
| dule went beyond the limit Of protection
and was schedule, practically, of pro-
| hibtiOn against the importation or re-
| fined sugar. That was unfair to all the
! other industries.
In answer 10 a question OF Mr.. Man
| deisOn. as TO the increased price which
| would have to be paid for sugar under
| the proposed schedule. Mr.. Allison said
| that. beyond all question. the price would
| be increased ! l-2 cents a pound. Anu
! all because the senator from Louisiana
wanted to ''Yindicate a theory ana 70
| abandon a condition. He concluded
with these words; "If | had my way l
would strike from this bill every vestage
| Of duty on sugar, and would continue
| bound TO do. till 1905. and if additional
| revenue were necessary, / would look
around among the luxuries and lay duties
on them"
Mr.. Jones replied TO Mr. Allison and
| defended the schedule as proposed by
| the Finance Committee. His remarks
were mostly of a technical character, in
VOlylng the various points as to raw
sugar aDOVe ana DelOW ttIltlN polllS VI
saccharine strength. as 10 the effect Of
the different rates Of duty on them, and
as to the point where the market value
of raw sugars is to be hXed, whether at
the point of export or at the principal
markets In the country from which they
come.
A CONFUSING CONTROVERSY.
On these and many other abstruse
points q rapid, confusing and generally
unntelligible controversy was kept up
ffrr,a t.afr ~ ~
Allison. Mr.. Jones. however. asserted
very positively that under existing law
there was not pound or 1ree sugar.
but that 100000 annually was paid
sugar refiners and not dollar TO the
Mr.. Allison asked Mr.. Jones what would
be the average increase OF sugar per pound
to the consumer over the present prices.
MIR. Jones replied that he supposed the
increase would be about one-half cent a
pound; 1t might exceed that, or 1t might
"oh. more than that" Mr.. Allison re-
Mr. PETER again asked whether duty
of 40 per cent. ad valorem would not
operate 10 raise the price OF sugar from
Mr. Jones thought 1t might be 1-4c.;
but from that was 10 be deducted, ne
said the 6l-lOO per cent. duty under the
In a coiioquy with Messrs. Allison,
Aldrich and Teller, Il was stated by Mr,
Caffery Q4a.) that under the tariff and
excise laws of Germany the prices %
sugar to the consumer was &c. per pound,
while. owing TO the bounty allowed for
expectation and to the freedom from
excise taxes. the same sugar was sold in
London at l-l5c. pound: And he argued
that that was the condition Of things
which the sugar bounty was calculated
TO rroGuce. He publicly avowed hiC ac-
know .ede nient 10 the senator's OF his
party lDl the duty on sugar.
Mr.. Morgan gave notice OF an amend
ment making II a criminal offence for
persons to enter into any conspiracy to
import any article so as 10 Increase its
market price IN any part OF the United
Pending this debate the question before
the Senate was stated 10 be the amend
ment changing the date OF the repeal OF
the sugar bounty from July l, 1894, to
January /. 1895.
THE TARIFF BILL.
Az the usual hour OF adjournment was
now approaching, Mr.. Harris rose ana
said: ii need not emphasize the impor-
tance of an early and fnal determindttoi..'
not of this. sugar schedule mercy. t;as nos
OF the tariff bill generally. l gave notce
last Friday that / would, on ana alter
to-day Unless much better progress was
made), ask for longer ana later ses-
sions.' -, -, -,
adiournment. and. II ! can get unanimous
consent 70 take theyote on the pendihB
amendment at an early hour tomorrow
and to all other amendments 10 the SUI
gar schedule without further debate aIter
That hour. / shall be glad 10 accommo-
date the convenience OF every senator
tand nv own as welD by moving a piiei
executive session and then an dulouin-
ment. But unless such agreement can
be reached my sense ., uuy W. ""s senate
pei niv ,y,th me for longer hours. Can 1