The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-06-06
JONES CARRIES THE DAY.
His Amendments to the Sugar SChed-
ule Adopted.


Until July, 1se5-The Senate Also
Inserts the Additional Paragraph
offered by Mr. Jones-Mr. Peffer's
Motion to Put Sugar on the Free
List Defeated.
Washington. June 5.-The first business
Of the Senate to-day was the passage of
the substitute bill, authorizing the con-
struction of a bridge over the Hudson
river between New York city and New
Jersey. A conference was asked, and
Messrs. Vest, Murphy and Frye were ap-
pointed conferees on the part of the Sen
ate.
The tariff bill was taken up, the ques-
tion being on the Jones amendment to the
am endment to the sugar schedule, post
poning its going into effect from July l,
1894, to Jan. l, 1895.
Mr.. Higgins, rep, of Delaware, opened
the time-killing debate. In discussing
the position of the Louisiana senators on
the sugar question, a remark of Mr.. Hig-
gins brought out au explanation from Mr.
Blanchard to the effect that he had voted
in the House against a repeal of the sugar
bounty, but had subsequently voted for
the bill in the expectation that the Senate
would again put sugar on the dutia BILE list.
TELEGRAM FROM LOUISIANA.
Then MIR. Aldrich sent to the clerks
desk, and had read the following tele-
gram received by him from David S Fer
rls, secretary of the planters convention
recently held in New Orleans:
Lamsirc, La, June T. lS9i.-Hon. N W
Aldrlch; The great majority OF the sugar
planters of this state favor the bounty, or de
mand its equivalent; as the present schedule
means ruin. The sugar convention never
passed any resolutions indorsing the acts Of
senators Canery or Blanchard on their pres
ent stand. We simply appreciated their ser
vices, but approve the stand of Congressman
Price, DaVey, Robertson and Meyer on their
vote agalnSt free sugar and in favor of a
bounty. refer you to published proceedings
OF convention sent you. | authorize you to
DAVID s. FERRIS
HIGGINS AGAINST THE AMENDMENT.
Mr.. Higgins resumed his remarks and
argued against the Jones amendment,
postponing the time for the sugar sched-
ule to go into effect, characterizing it as
1.-THE last dreadful act of extortion, which
this bill proposes to perpetrate on the
American people"
Mr.. Chandler also argued against the
amendment
Mr.. Aldrich then went into an elaborate
discussion of the sugar provisions, to
show that they would result in large ben
efts TO the sugar trust.
THE SCANDAL OF 1890.
The sugar trust scandal was again
brought up, and MIR. Vest recalled the
condition of things during the tendency
of the Mckinley tariff law There was
then, he said, duplicate of the present
cOndition-the same lies, the same fabri-
cations, the same attacks upon public
men, the charge that the committee
on ways and means in the
House was receiving representatives
of the rehnerS throagh the
back door, and the charge that the
Senate finance committee was being i'm
properly influenced $50 that all this stuff
about there being no parallel to the case'
amounts to nothing. Mr.. Vest supported
his assertions with extracts from repub-
lican newspapers of 1880, coDdemning the
action of the Senate in increasing the pro-
lection to the sugar interests from l6
cents per 100 pounds to 90 cents. The
senator from Maine, he said, had the
hardihood to say that the sugar trust did
not then attract attention, in the face of
the fact that 8,629, 600 shares of stock of
that trust were sold in the New York
stock market in 1890.
Mr. Aldrich expressed on his part
great surprise at the hardihood" of Mr..
est in stating that the Senate had
raised duties in 1890 from l6 to 90 cents
per hundred pounds.
$50 you did, Mr. Vest persisted.
Nothing of the sort ever took place;
and nothing approximating it," Mr.. Aid
rich said, with equal persistency."
SHERMAN CALLED DOWN BY BRICE.
Then MIR. Sherman got into the discus
sion in an attempt to prove that there
woo no ~ frtl in 1904 hllt ha
Immediately met by his democratic col
league (Brice), who asserted positively
that the sugar trust or commits
sion was then in existence, hav-
ing capitalization of $50, 100000,
and when the sugar trust had made
its arrangements with the Senate
committee then controlling the Mckinley
bill the price of the stock rose from 63 to
95. Mr.. Vest charged Mr.. Aldrich with
wanting to retain the Mckinley act, ''the
paradise of the trust" with 80 cents per
hundred pounds on refined sugar and
with raw sugar free. ''And we" he CON
tinued, as the republican senators in
dulged in a quiet laugh, ''are fighting
that trust to-day and doing the best we
can to cut down its protection"
WHEN 1T IS TO TAKE EFFECT.
The controversy was suddenly stopped
by a knock from the gaYel of tine Vice
President, who stated that the hour had
arrived for beginning to vote on the sugar
schedule, and that the question was on
the amendment offered by Mr.. Jones,
postponing the repeal of the sugar bounty
provision from DULY /, 1894 TO July /, 1895.
The vote was taken and the result an
nounced as 40 to 81 but then there were
some Withdrawals of votes on account Of
pairing, and the corrected result was
given as 3S to 81. On this vote the popu-
list senators, Messrs. Allen and Kyle,
voted with the democrats, and Mr.. PETER
with the republicans.
Mr. Hill did not vote and Mr. Irby of
South Carolina, was paired with Mr.
Dixon, rep, of Rhode Island.
A series of amendments were then
offered by Messrs. Manderson and ALI
son, looking to the retention and to the
gradual extinction of the sugar bounty.
All were rejected.
Then the question recurred on the
amendment offered by Mr.. Jones, insert
ing as an additional paragraph lS21z) the
following "On and after Jan. /,
1895, there shall be levied, collected
and paid on all sugars and on all tank
bottoms, syrups of cane juice or of beet
Juice, melada, concentrated melada. con
crete and concentrated molasses, duty
of 40 per cent ad valorem, and upon all
sugars above No 16 Dutch standard in
color, and upon all sugars which have
been discolored, there shall be levied, col