The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-01-23
SUGAR BOUNTY REPEALED
Bad News for the Chino
Beet Growers.
The House Opposed to Paying
Subsidies.
an Important Amendment to the
Wilson Tariff Bill.
efter a Hard Struggle the Anti-sugar
Men win-The Bounty Repealed,
But the Question of Duty
Still Unsettled.

SILL Unsertieds
By the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22.-In the houss
the fight to amend the sugar schedule of
the Wilson bill was made today. 1t
opened at once, under the agreement of
Friday setting apart three hours for the
purpose. Some time was spent in ar
ranging the details OF the discussion by
the various interests. The sugar men
finally asked that one hour each be given
to the advocates of the bounty provision
of the Wilson bill, to the advocates of
the retention OF the Mckinley law
bounty, and to the advocates of duty
on sugar. 1t was objected to that this
gave no opportunity to the advocates of
free sugar to be heard. 1t was finally
agreed that the Louisiana memb ers, as
the ones most interested. should have
an hour, aud the remainder of the house
take its chances of recognition there
after.
McRea (Dem.) OF Arkansas offered an
amendment to abolish the sugar bounty,
leaving sugar on the free list. He
thought it was no time to be paying
bounties when the treasury was bank
rupt and borrowing money at 5per cent.
! The bounty would cost the people of
the country, said McRae, as It stood,
$4,000 600 The bounty last year cost
$l0,000,000 He contended that the
bounty was unconstitutional, undemo-
cratic and should be abolished.
Meikeljohn offered ae an amendment
to that of McRae the sugar bounty
provision of the Mckinley law. He
said it had been passed to afford an OPP
portunity for American capital. The
purpose OF that act had been fulfilled.
1t had resulted in a vast investment of
capital-$150, 000, 900 in Louisiana, $15.-
000, 900 in California and $4,000, 900 in
Florida. If the provision of the Will
son bill passed, this great industry
would be destroyed and we would be
placed at the mercy of foreign producers
of sugar. at the same time giving the
sugar trust protection OF 80 per cent,
or quarter of cent on every pound OF
refined sugar.
Dockery (Dsm.) OF Missouri offered as
a substitute TOR the amendments the
proposition TO abolish the bounty on
eugar and place raw and refined sugar
on the free list. II there was anything,
said Dockerr, on which the Democracy
wanted unity, it was in opposition to
this bounty. The beet. sorghum and
maple sugar bounties were petty lar
ceny, while the bounty on cane sugar
rose to the dignity of grand larceny.
. Boatner (Dem.) of Louisiana wanted
to know why Dockery did not strike
down all the duty and all the protection
on cotton and wooden goods and all other
articles. and place them on the free list.
The latter replied that all reforms
could not be accomplished in day.
The farmer who followed the pillow did
not demand bounty on wheat or corn;
all they wanted was an equal chance In
the race of life.
Cannon (Rep.) of Illinois supported
Meikleiohn's amend ment. The free
sugar clause of the Mckinley law had
saved the people of the country, rich
and poor alike, annually from 81 to
ST. 20 per capita.
Alter the reading of the Hawaiian
correspondence which was transmitted
by the president. Boutelle demanded
recognition. He charged that it WAS
apparent from three successive messages
seat to the house, that the government
engaged in iomenting an insurrection in
country with which the United States
was ct peace.
Hot words between Boutelle and the
speaker followed. Hatch asked that
Boutelle's words be taken down, and
Bortelle was ordered to take his seat.
He refused to do so and the sergeant-at-
arms was called upon to support the
speakers authority. Great excitement
followed.
The rule was read, then the speaker
recognized motion to resume considers
alton of the tariff bill. On division
Boutelle made the point of no quorum.
The Republicans refused to vote. Tellers
were appointed and it looked as though
no quorum could be found and that the
tariff debate would be suspended.
Finally, however, bare quorum got to-
gether and the sugar debate continued.
Dockery withdrew his amendment.
Harter Of Ohio offered substitute TO
abolish the bounty and impose duty
Of cent par pound.
Gear, the new Lenator from Iowa,
spoke in favor of an amendment to
make reduction of the bounty, to be-
gin 1898 instead OF 1895.
Bryan (Dem.) OF Nebraska, supported
the bounty provision of the Wilson bill,
and maintained that the present con-
crosses. He favored free sugar and an
income tax.
Dingley of Maine and Mercer OF Me-
braska supported the present bounty,
and Tarsney of Missouri defended the
bounty provision of the Wilson bill.
Robertson (Dem.) of Louisiana offered
an amendment to strike out the bounty
provision and insert. CAN sugars shall
paw duty upon polariecopic tests az
follows: Not above 70 degrees, cent
duty, and for every additional degree or
fraction of a degree, $40 OF cent per
pound additional. and all sugars above
l6 Dutch standard an additional duty of
5-20 OF cent duty per pound. provided
that all sugars, when exported from
country which pays bounty ON sugar,
shall pay in addition to these rates
duty equal to the bounty psid by such
country.
Washington (Dsm.) OF Tsnnesssa
urged q 1 cent tax for revenue, en- the