The weekly intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1891-1901, 1894-01-27
SWEET DEBATE.
Spicy Discussion on the Sugar
Schedule.
The House Puts In an Interesting Day
A swarm Around the Sugar Hogs
head-The bounty Wiped
Ont.
The Sugar Eounty'

W WASHINGTON, jan. -o.-l lie hShb W |
amend the sugar schedule of the Will |
son bill in the house opened immedi- |
ately after the reading of the journal, |
according to the agreement reached |
last Friday by which three hours were |
set aside for this purpose.
The first amendment was that offered
by Mr.. McRae to abolish entirely the
sugar bounty. In support of his amend
ment he said that it proposed to abol-
ish entirely the sugar bounty and leave
sugar on the free list where it was
placed by the Mckinley law. A time
when the treasury was bankrupt and
the secretary of the treasury was pro-
posing to borrow money ut 8 per cent
interest was no time to pay a special
bounty to any interest He had no per-
sonal feeling against the section of the
country to be affected. but he did not
conceive that democratic congress
should perpetuate this, the most vicious
provision of the Mckinley law. The
bounty would cost the people of the
country as it stood s50,000,000. The
bounty last year cost $40, 900. He
contended that the bounty was uncon-
stitutional and undemocratic and
should be abolished.
Mr.. Meikeljohn offered as an amend
mept to that of Mr.. McRae the sugar
bounty provision of the Mckinley law.
This, he said, had been passed to afford
an opportunity for American capital.
The purpose of that act had been full
filled. 1t had resulted in a vast invest
ment of capital, $3.50, 600, 900 in Louisi-
al. nd
900, 600 in Florida If the provisions of
the Wilson bill were passed this great
industry would be destroyed and would
be placed at the mercy of foreign pro-
ducers of sugar, at the same time Civ
| ing to the sugar trust protection of
! SO per cent or u quarter of one cent on
every pound of refined sugar.
| Mr.. Doclxery dem. of Missouri, Of
fered as a substitute for the amend
ments n proposition to abolish the
bounty on sugar and place the raw and
refined sugar on the free list. If there
was anything. said he, on which the
democracy wanted unity, it was oppo-
sition to this bounty. The beet, sorg-
hum and maple sugar bounties were
petty larceny, while the bounty on
cane sugar rose to the dignity of grand
larceny.
Mr.. Boatner, of Louisiana, wanted to
know why Mr. Dockery did not strike
down all duty and all protection on
cotton and wooden goods and all other
articles and place them on the free list.
Mr.. Dockery replied that all reforms
could not be accomplished in day.
The farmers who followed the plow
did not demand bounty on wheat or
corn. All they wanted was an equal
chance in the race of life.
Mr. Cannon, of Illinois, supported
Mr.. Meikeljohn's amendment The
free sugar clause of the Mckinley law
had saved the people of the country,
rich and poor alike, annually, from 81
to Sl.25 per capita.
Mr. Price, of Louisiana, asserted that
the duty had been changed to a bounty
against the protest of Louisiana; aboli
ton of the bounty now would crush
the industry which should not be treat
ed more harshly than other industries
Mr.. Dockery withdrew his amend
ment and Harter, of Ohio, offered &
substitute to abolish the bounty and
impose duty of one cent q pound.
Mr. Dingley, of Maine, and Mr.. Mer
Ger. of Nebraska, supported the pres
ent bounty, and Mr.. Tarsney defended
that of the Wilson bill Mr.. Robert
son (dem), of Louisiana, offered thu
, following amendment: TO strike ou
the bounty provision of the Wilson bill
I and insert ''all sugars shall pay dut,
upon their polariscopic test" MIR
, Washington (dem.), of Tennessee
urged a cent tax for revenue on tn,
grounds that 1t was the most effective
/ means of raising the revenue.
Mr.. Snodgrass (dem), of Tennessee
r and Mr.. Mallory (dem.), of Florida, op
, posed the bounty.
: Mr.. Harter (dem.), of Ohio, urge
that his substitute should be adopte
, as means of raising revenue, as tn
| treasury was changing by its eyelids.
Mr.. Bowers (rep), of California, wa
I opposed to the abolition of any porto
, of the existing bouRty on sugar, an
: Mr. Hooker (dem.), of Mississippi, fl
I vored the restoration of the sugar dut
0 as in accordance with the Chicago pla'
t form.
Mr.. Warner (dem.) of New York, O
fered an amendment to Mr.. Robinson
substitute to place refined sugar on tn
- free list.
Mr.. Simpson (pop), OF, Kansas, dt
/ clared that the free sugar given by til
s Mckinley law furnished The best e,
e ample of what n removal of the oneror
l. protective duties would do for the col
h sumer
Mr. Hainer Grsp.), of Nebraska, az
vocated the retention of the preseI
=, bounty, and Mr.. Boatner, (dem.), I
p Louisiana, in concluding the debate fl
- the sugar men, insisted the tradition
!, I, of the democratic party should be o.
,e posed to u revenue. Had Louisiana in
agined, he said, that her great industl
IS was to be stricken down her vote woul
not have been given to Cleveland at Il
% last election.
,, Mr.. Wilson concluded the debate
u advocacy of the bounty provision
the pending bill.
% The voting began at 4;"0, after
~ great deal of wrangling as to the maj
- ner in which the amendments shoul
70 he voted upon, and Mr. McRae's amen
"a ment to the sugar schedule, abolishir
20 the bounty entirely, was garfield
"a TO %.