The Globe-republican. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1889-1910, 1894-01-26
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 Bounty.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23-The fight to
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 at 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 $50, ZOO. The
bounty last year cost $4,000, 900. He
contended that the bounty was uncon-
stitutional and undemocratic and
should be abolished.
Mr. MeikeljOhn offered as an amend
ment 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
filed. 1t had resulted in a vast invest
ment of capital, $50, 600, 900 in Louisi-
ana, SIS, 600. 900 in California and-SlO,
600, 900 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 a protection of
50 per cent. or a quarter of one cent on
every pound of refined sugar.
Mr.. Dockery (dem. }, of Missouri, of
fered as substitute for the amend
ments a 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
Snow 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 a day.
The farmers who followed the pillow
did not demand a 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 s1.25 per capita.
Mr. Price, of Louisiana, asserted that
the duty had been changed to 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 a pound.
Mr.. Dingley, of Maine, and Mr.. Mer-
Ger. of Nebraska, supported the pres
emit bounty. and Mr.. Tarsney defended
that of the Wilson bill Mr.. Robert
son (dem), of Louisiana, offered the
following amendment: To strike out
the bounty provision of the Wilson bill
and insert ''all sugars shall pay duty
upon their polariscopic test" Mr..
Washington (dem.), of Tennessee,
urged a / cent tax for revenue on the
grounds that it was the most effective
means of raising the revenue.
Mr.. Snodgrass dem, of Tennessee,
and Mr.. Mallory (dem). of Florida, op-
posed the bounty.
Mr.. Harter (dem.l, of Ohio. urged
that his substitute should be adopted
Is a means of raising revenue, as the
treasury was hanging by its eyelids.'
Mr.. Bowers (rep), of California, was
opposed to the abolition of any portion
Of the existing bounty on sugar, and
Mr. Hooker (dem.), of Mississippi, ia.
vored the restoration of the sugar duty
As in accordance with the Chicago plat.
form
Mr.. Warner (dem. }. of New York, of.
Tered an amendment to Mr.. Robinson's
substitute to place refined sugar on the
tree list.
Mr.. Simpson (pop), of Kansas, de-
clared that the free sugar given by the
Mckinley law furnished the best ex-
ample of what a removal of the onerous
protective duties would do for the con-
sumner.
Mr.. Hainer (rep), of Nebraska, ad-
vocated the retention of the present
bounty, and Mr. Boatner, (dem-), of
Louisiana, in concluding the debate for
the sugar men, insisted the traditions
of the democratic party should be OPP
posed to a revenue. Had Louisiana inn
agined, he said, that her great industry
was to be stricken down her vote would
not have been given to Cleveland at the
last election.
Mr.. Wilson concluded the debate in
.l,-~n,oxy of tho houufv nroviS;ou ~