Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-06-01
TALK ABOUT SUGAR
Senator Marderson Discusses the
Beet Sugar Industry.
An AMENDMENT BE WILL OFFER
The State Bank Tax Repeal Bill
in the House.
1T is FURTHER EBATED

desk of Senator Proctor OF Vermont when
the Senate met at 10 o'clock today in honor
Of his birthday.
Mr.. Hoar of Massachusetts presented a
petition from the New England Industrial
army" asking legislation which would guar
antee work to the unemployed. Mr.. Hoar
stated that the petition. which was but one
OF many OF similar character presented TO
Congress. was worthy OF consideration. He
moved that special committee OF five be
appointed to investigate the matters set
/ forth therein, but withdrew II upon the
suggestion Of Mr.. Cockrell Of Missouri that
/ it should first go to the committee on rules.
1t was referred
] On motion Of Mr.. Pettigrew, a bill grant,
ing addltonal lands I'm the Hot Springs
TO the Berry Hospital was taken from the
calendar and passed. Ii was within fve
minutes of 10:30 when the morning business
was finished, and Mr. Hin OF New York
| therefore made no effort to get up his reso-
luton TO instruct the bribery committee to
] throw open its doors TO the public IL went
| over without prejudice. as did Mr.. Dolph's
resolution 10 bring z. ]. Edwards, one Of
| the contumacious witnesses to the bar Of
| the Senate for contempt
Mr. Frye CMe) asked the Vice President
| whether or not the proceedings in refer
| tA'Ne 10 lne cOntumaciOuS witnesses had
been certified by him TO the district attor-
ney under the law. Mr.. Stevenson replied
that they had been so certified.
Mr. hill asked unanimous consent 10 con-
| sicer joint resolution passed by the Houes
| YESTERDAY giving the Secretary of War au-
thority under the last sundry civil appro-
priation act to institute condemnation pro-
eeeaings to secure certain lands near the
battlefield OF Gettysburg. Judge Dallas. he
explained, had just held that the language
| OF that act was not broad enough to war
rant condemnation proceedings.
| Mr.. Cockrell tMoD objected. insisting THAI
| the resolution should go first 10 the COM
mittee on military affairs. and IL was 80 re-
| ferred.
The Sugar Schedule.
The tariff bill was then laid before the
Senate and the great battle over the sugar
schedule began. The Mckinley law placed
raw sugars on the free list imposed l-2
cent duty on refined sugar and gave q
| bounty of 2 cents to the sugar growers.
The House bin repealed the bounty ana
| placed all sugars. raw and refined. on the
free list. The first bill reported from the
| finance committee Of the Senate gave a
SPECIFIC duty Of from cent TO 1-2s5 per
pound according to polariscopic test The
| compromise" amendment, which Is the one
| now before the Senate, made the sugar
schedule go into effect January 1, 1886. the
rates being 40 per cent ad valorem on all
sugars. raw and refined. one-eighth OF 1
| cent additional on sugars above 10. Dutch
! standard. with an additional one-tenth OF
! cent a pound on sugar from countries
paying export bounties. II also continued
the sugar treaty with Hawaii
Mr.. Manderson's Remarks.
Mr.. Manderson CNebD took the floor az
soon as Mr.. Jones had formally proposed
the compromise amendment The sugar
! schedule, he said. was the interesting
| schedule of the bill. 1t contained both
| sweetness and light. 1t seemed to peryads
the whole bill.
The bill could not be touched without
| laying hands on sugar. The Senate had
| even departed from the consideration OF the
| bin 10 make explorations in sugar. not In
= the cane fields of Nebraska. but In the COM
mittee room. The saccharine principle as
| IL impregnated all nature. invaded every
feature of this bill Mr.. Manderson then
proceeded TO argue in favor of protection and
| for the sugar-growing industry OF the coun-
try. The consumption OF sugar In the
United States was enormous. he said. Al.
| most 5.0oo.0o0.0oo pounds OF raw sugar had
| been consumed last year. representing. ~
grown and refined abroad, a grand total OF
| Sls2.oooooo TO be paid TO foreigners. Free
sugar would mean the immediate destruc-
ton of the beet sugar industry and the
/ gradual extinction of cane sugar produc-
| ton in the southern states. II properly
protected, he prophesied that before 1913
beet sugar production would have SO de-
veloped in the north and cane sugar In the
| south that the United States could supply
the full consumption of the United States.
Beet sugar growing offered an important
| Industry to the farmers OF the country.
When developed to the extent necessary TO
\ supply the home demand IL would afford a
crop Of 100000 acres. Was 1t any wonder
that the farmers of the west wanted q con-
tinuation OF the sugar bounty? They were
| enthusiastic over the prospect. IL was the
| great boon which they asked Congress TO
| save them Every acre planted In bests
meant twenty days labor to a man.
Beet Sugar Production.
| No country in the world Mr.. Manderson
said. was so well adapted to produce beet
sugar as the United States. Beet growing
ultimately would displace cane growing.
Cane contained l3 per cent Of saccrose or
crystalline sugar sorghum but per cent
while beets gave from Is TO 10 per cent OF
| crystalline sugar. Mr. Manderson denied
| that In fostering the growth of beet and
| cane sugar any obligations existed TO pro-
| tect the -efners. There was no connection,
he declared. between the sugar-growers and
/ the odious sugar trust He cared nothing for
| the one and everything for the other. He pro-
ceeded to describe In detail the manner IN
| which beets were grown and the methods
| OF their conversion In the factory into
| sugar.
He sketched the development of beet-susar
production in other countries under the
bounty system adopted in Germany, Aus
tria-Hungary, Russia, Holland. Belgium.
| Sweden. Denmark, Italy, Canada. Even
| England. not to be behindhand. was offer
| ing a bounty In her colonies The total pro-
| duction OF cane sugar IN the world was
| 100000 tons, and of beet sugar S710.O0o
| tons. Cane sugar had always been protect
ed in this country up TO 1890. In 1850 the
production under the duty was PSI 000, 600
pounds. Since the imposition of the bounty
| the annual product had grown to 50.oo0-
600. With this comparatively small pro-
duction. compared with the enormous con-
| sumption in the United States (about 5000 =
| oo0.o00), IL was. In his opinion. better to
| give bounty and pay directly out OF the
| treasury ten or even twenty million a year
as the industry developed than for the peo-
| pie TO pay In duty in indirect taxation from
| fifty to seventy-ive million dollars.
Will Oner n Substftute.
| Mr.. Manderson gave notice that at the
proper time he would offer as a substitute
for the sugar schedule OF the bill the bounty
provision OF the Mckinley BILL continu-
ing IL in force until July !, 1885. He
argued at length in support of the consti-
| tutionality of bounties. quoting extensively
| from court decisions. especially the de-
| cision of Justice Miller.
4 III Congress were to give bounty, in-
! Quired Mr.. Caffery U-a.), TO farmer or
4 manufacturer, do you contend fhat me
| courts have no right TO inquire Enether tne
bounty is given for a public or private
| use?"
II do" replied Mr.. Manderson; "the de-
| cision OF Mr. Miller is conclusive on that