The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-01-23

Bowers, Rep, of California Was opposed
TO abolition of any portion Of the existing
bounty on sugar.
Hooker, DEM. Of Mississippi favored
restoration Of the sugar duty as in accord
ance with the Chicago platform.
warner. Dem, Of New York offered an
amendment 10 place refined sugar ALSO
Iuteiy on the free list
simpson, Fop4, OF Kansas declared THAI
TIE free sugar given hy the Mckinley law
7 inFnished the best example Of what re-
moVat Of onerons protective duties
| wonld do for the consumer.
blanchard, Dem. of Louisiana said IL
was now the duty of the Democratic party.
whose last platform had declared for a
revenue tariff, 20 restore the duty ON
| sugar.
Hainer, Rep. Of Nebraska advocated re-
ten,ion of the present bounty.
bcafrer, Dern.. Of louisiana concluding
the debate for she sugar men. insisted that
the traditions Of the Democratic party
should be adhered 70 aud revenue duty
he placed on sugar. Had Louisiana ina
| agined her great industry was 10 be stricken
down, her vote would not have been given
Cleveland st the last election.
Payne. Rep. of New York, opposed
restoration of the sugar duty because is
was a tax on the breakfast table, and de-
tended the bounty provision of the Nc.
kiniey law
/ Wilson concluded the debate in advocacy
OF the bounty provision OF the pending
| bill.
Voting began at &:cc. after great deal
Oh wFangiing as TO the manner in which
the amendments should DO voted upon. is
4 h~ain k.., A.
would permit -four amendment t. TO be pend
ing 20 each of paragraphs $50 and
Isl. the first relating To the bounty on
sugar and the latter to the duty on refined
sugar.
| The first vote was taken upon Meikel-
| johns amendment TO substitute the pro-
visions OF the Mckinley law. IL was de-
ieated without division by strictly party
| vote
Ihe vote then required upon the amend
ment OF Price. inserting the provisions of
the Mills bill. This amendment had tho
| support OF quite number of Democrats
including the author. Bailey Hooker and
the members OF the Louisiana delegation.
| The remainder of the Democrats voted
| against 10. For the first time the Republi-
cans showed their hand. declining to vote
at all upon the proposition, which was
| defeaied-i3 to las.
The vote then came up on Harter's sub
stitute, which was lost without division.
| This made the vote recur upon MeRas's
| original proposition to abolish altogether
| the bounty provisions of tho Wilson bill.
| Quite number of Republicans. including
Cannon. Hopkins. Dalzell and hunk, voted
| with the radical Democrats against the
members of the committee for this propo-
sition. Some of the radicals were:
Springer, Riley. Oates, Brown, Johnson
OF Ohio. cuiberson. Warner. Layton,
Washington. Carnth. Wise. Stone, Ever
EFT. Bailey. Mcclure. Hare. Richie. 6eary,
Harter. Saycrs. Goldxier and Cummings.
The amendment was carried by the over
wheiming majority OF 13s to 89. This
action aooiishes the bounty on sugar.
A vote was then taken upon the amend
ments to section i6t, providing for . duty
| on refined sugars. Robertson's amend
ment, providing for duty of from cent
per pound upward on sugars testing by
| polariscope not above IS degrees, was OF.
fered as the first amendment To this
Warner offered an amendment to place
refined sugar on the FREQ list, and after a
lengthy parliamentary discussion rs TO
the status Of the pending amendments, it
being claimed Of the Louisiana members
| that . misunderstanding existed, owing to
ruling by tho chair, by unanimous con-
| sent Breckinridge of Kentucky was al
lowed TO offer n substitute for the two
amendments. placing q uniform duty OF 1
cent upon all sugars below f6 Dutch
| standard.
A vote was first taken upon Warmers
amendment TO abolish the duty on re-
| fined sugar. and again the radical Demo-
Gratis scored another signal victory, the
Republicans declining to vote BY
vote of i37 to 81 the duty on
refined sugar was abolished. Among
those who voted for Il were: johnson Of
Ohio. Coleman. Heard, Springer, Lock-
wood. Mutchier, MeGuire. Abbott. Mar
tin. Bland and Simpson. while the Louisi.
ana delegation, members Of the ways and
means COMMITTEES generally. Piatt, Wise
and Cummings voted against il.
The substitute of Breckinridge was de-
/ feated. IA to 81. The Democratic sup
porters of the Breckinridge amendment
were unable to secure enough followers to
| order teIIers.
At this iuncture. amid great confusion,
the time came TO take final vote upon
| Robertson's amendment as amended by
| Warmers amendment. A great deaf of
Observation-Disclosures sAtstth upon the BO0r
| as to what effect adoption Of the amended
proposition would mean The Repubii.
cans we're hilariousiy joyful at the tangle
into which they had gotten the Democrats.
| Payne shouted out that II the pending
| proposition was adopted IL would have the
very incongruous effect OF placing raw
sugar on the dutisble list and refined
sugar on the free list Richardson, who
was In the chair. was appealed 10 IN vain
| TO state the effect Of adoption Of tie pend
| ing amendment. So much misundef-
standing existed, even among some of the
most skillful parliamentarians on both
sides, that Wilson finally decided amid
| great confusion. to move that the commit
| tee rise in order 70 give everybody an op-
| portuniiy To examine over night into the
| parliamentary situation, and accordingly
| at % the committee rose and the house
took recess until o'clock.
| At the night session the following men,
| bers spoke: Brookshire. Nccreary. Gold
| zier, Broderick. Hilbern and Avery.
4
IN THE SENATE.