The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-07-21

| presented 10 the Senate to-day praying for
| a speedy and profitable end to this long
| uncertainty He Endorsed the petition. The
| conference had failed. The two houses were
| arrayed against each other, yet ii was pro-
| posed that the Senate further insist on
| every one of the GA amendments. Was
| that the way 10 accomplish results? The
| majority in the House to-day was ma
| Jority sent by The people 10 crystalhze the
| doctrine of tariff reform after years or
agitation. The House. after months of la
| borious work. had sent to the Senate
| NEE sure OF tarif reform that had been re-
| ceived with JOY by the country. When the
| Senate had heaped upon that measure its
| amendments the bin was not received with
| cordiality by the people 1t was hardly
recognizable. Yet it was proposed TO stand
| What would justify the Senate in taking
| that position now? If the Senate did this
| il violated the spirit of the Constitution.
| The Senate sought to make articles dutia-
| BILE which the House placed on the free
| list. The amendment he offered, he said,
would strike down an iniquitous and IN,
| defensible amendment placed in the bill
by the Senate. With that exception he was
| prepared to vote for further insistence on
| the Senate amendments. He believed sugar
| a proper subject for taxation, but the dis
| elimination in favor OF the sugar refining
interest was tax leyleu LOT tne purPosE -, "
still further enriching the most gigantic
| trust in this country. For what reason
| should we still further insist on tax
| solely for the benefit OF the sugar trust
| Does not the one-eighth OF cent d1f-
| ferentiaI placed on refined sugar" asked
| Mr. Gallery, 'inure to the benefit of the
'SThe Senator from Louisiana is better
! able to answer that question tan re-
| piled Mr. Villas. But il has met with the
| universal disapprobation of the people. be-
| cause il has been placed in the bill as
| peculiar advantage 10 the trust AS such
| deal with it, Let us deliver ourselves from
| this charge of subserviency TO colossal
| and Croesus-like combination The Sugar
| Trust corporation he said. had been able In
| single year to divide nearly one-third of
! the aggregate of its gigantic and inflated
stock of S75.OOOOO0. Did such corporation
A a 90 n
| president of the Sugar Trust had said that
| sugar could be refined here at a cheaper
| labor cost than in England, France or Ger
| many. For one. he could not support TINS
measure without seeking TO relieve the con-
| ference of this tax, so obnoxious ana OPP
| pressve TO the people, so criminal In It's
| purpose and so offensive TO the true prin-
| ciples of Democracy. The tarif-retorm
measure in which lnere was so much hope
| for the future. he concluded. should not be
marred with the badge of servitude to the
| Sugar Trust.
LOUISIANA SENATOR'S AROUSED.
Mr. Caffery. in reply to Mr.. Villas, said
he in the Senate to guard the inter
ests of his State. Sugar was its most sta
| pie product He was not interested in the
Sugar Trust. nor was his people. But the
| producers of Louisiana were also manufac-
| turers of centrifugal sugars with which
those of the trust competed, and they were
| entitled to the one-eigth of cent differ
| entail He declared that in the matter OF
| tariff reform. he was in strict accord with
| the orthodox tenetS of his party. lie re-
| viewed the historic attitude or the party
| toward sugar duty. talr revenue duty
! of sugar now was what the situation de-
manded. and all the sugar producers of
| Louisiana asked. He was a Democrat he
| loved his party, but if the time came when
| he had 10 choose between his state and
| his party, he would stand by his state. LII
| the one-eighth differential on retlned sugar
was stricken out. he declared. in con-
| clusion he would not vote for the bill.
Mr sherman ranlyiDQ briefly
valorem duty of 40 per cent was sufficient
to protect the sugar producers of Louis
lana. The sugar producers, In MS OPINION
had no right to complain. Sugar was of
| fered a higher duty than any other ag-
| ricultural product Why should the addi-
tional one-eighth of a cent be imposed?
| M Palmer proclaimed that he was in
favor of free materials and ANNOUNCED
that he would oppose the one-eignth OF "a
thought the sugar producers of louisiana
We're in Door company when they joined
nership should be dissolved.
Does an IDENTITY Of - interests M s eco G0nsti
tute partnership asked Nd Nj Ma, Canery;;.
identity of interests and a division of profits
do constitute a partnership. Protection,
Mr.. Palmer continued, was a sham and a
"Did you believe when you moved to
take barbed wire from. the free list and
place a duty on it that protection was
fraud%' asked Mr.. CahsrY.
81 did," replied AIR. Palmer, amid laugh
|
wire was made had been on the free list
1 should have supported :hs proposition to
place the wire on the free list MT Pal-
mer said he was in favor OF passing the
bill with such notifications as could be
obtained. He was in favor OF sending 1t
TO the President. Let the President DO his
thinks this "a better bill than the Mckin-
ley law let him sign it,. II not, let him
veto il. | voted for this bill because prac-
tically this all we could accomplish
1 was a Senator from Illinois before Mr.
Cleveland was elected President. word
to the wise Is sufficient. ULaughter)
Mr.. Blanchard. who followed Mr. Pal
mer, charged bad faith on the 'art OF
some of the Democratic Senators. He point
ed out that in the Democratic caucus the
concessions placed in the Senate bill mad
been assented to by forty-tWo l51enocrainG,
on refined sugars was one of those con-
cessions. The forty per cent. on raw ana
| refined sugar was another, and the pay
ment of bounty for the remainder of the
| present year was another. This last agree
ment was violated; Mr.. Villas, who made
in caucus, Mr.. Blanchard said. and had
made no objection to 1t: somebody, said
| agreement. which is as binding now as it
| ever was" The Louisiana Senators. al
though the caucus arrangement had been
| violated i'm the failure 10 provide Tor the
| continuation of the bounty for the remain
der of the year. had voted for the bin
| with the expectation that that provision
would be inserted in conference. Mr.
| Blanchard called attention to the fact that
| Mr.. Hill, who was now In antagOnlSm to
| his position on sugar was in Democratic
caucus and did not raise his voice against
| the sugar schedule.
THE Senator very we'll knows" inter
rupted Mr. Hill. that | dissented wholly
| from the conclusions of that caucus and
refused 10 be bound by it. ! did not men,
| ton sugar one way or another"
| Mr.. Blanchard proceeded to say that it
was time for plain speaking. Over $780,
100000 in his State were involved, and
without induging in threats, he desired
TO say that the Louisiana representatives
| expected that the caucus agreement would
| be carried out TO the letter.
| When Mr.. Blanchard concluded. Mr.
Cockrell moved that when the Senate ad-
| journed to-day it be to meet on Monday
| next. Mr.. Hill attempted to resist the
motion, but il not debatable The
motion was carried-9O to 23-Messrs. Hill
| and Irby voting with the Republicans
| against the motion. Then, at $40. the SEN
| ate went into executive session. and at
| $50 adjourned until Monday at L o'clock
Urged to Pass the Bill.
| NASHVILLE. Tenn, July 20-The
| Chamber of Commerce, together with the
representatives of the banks, trust COM
panies and manufacturing establishments.
adopted resolutions to-day calling upon the
| Tennessee Senators and Representatives to
| forego their personal differences and speed
| lily pass a tariff BILL so as to put an end
to the uncertainty now paralyzng the bust
| ness interests of the country.
Seen by Different Eyes.