New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-06-03
TAKES A HAND.
f,y TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUSE.I

TAKES HAND.
fpY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUYE.J
r-,shlngton June 1.-The debate on the sugar
s,,,a NJ the Tariff bill. which began about
'.,ook this afternoon. was marked by series or
o,,ro Messages between the two Louisiana
tors and Mr.. Adrich. The Rhode Island Sena-
se.o,,,elled both Mr.. Caffery and Mr.. Blanchard
'"' ,,, that the 40 per cent ad valorem duty on
|" 60, ar contained In the Gorman-Jones sched-
To- o1ers scarcely adequate protection TO the
s,,s,ana planting interest. But whie conceoi'e
the Louisiana industry would suffer severely
."S., repeal Of the present bounty system ana
Nv. rNs,itution of an inadequate duty ooth
s..s,ors announced that they would accept ,he
av rate rather than JOIN WIFI inc i'epu W
rnetuate the present law
yer ,,orris now saws that he Will continue next
~. daily sessions until or 10 o'clock unless
- further definite agreement FOR considering
"a voting upon the sugar scheduie Is susses'eu
tom the Republican side
~ Aldrich rep, r. H. said that from the hour
~. tho bill passed the House its fate depended
~he" on the skill or on the want Of skill with
~,h the rates Of the sugar schedule were Inahpu-
W. I, had not needed the speech OF the sena-
iS' - MARYLAND (Alr. Gorman) 10 apprise the
vi ~ tho United States that no Tariff bill could
w the Senate which did not fix the rates OF
"a schedule satisfactorily. The talents OF 'he
t..ra,ic managers In and out or the senate
- hsen devoted for months TO the oehCale anu
ls ,,, task Of fixing sugar schedule SATISFACTORY
=. the various interests. II had peeh mOueiieu anu
so,,e1 revised and re-revised. one. two three.
leHa eve times at least within public knowi-
'1 - rates had been changed or modifed. HOW
Gus .,,es they had been changed without the
H uSanva having been brought to pubic kno"leoee
IN knew or could guess. II had pech inu-
Nv 80 that an examination OF the quotations III
n ia No,,.york Stock Exchange would furnish pet-
~. audience as to the changes than any o'ner Wv
p, ,,o What had been the plain purpose OF
'aina0e -,o,,s changes? Had It been to carry out
tae' It.. advocated or adopted by the Demo
SUI. 800 Not by any means. The proposition
e'a". ,,,7ose tax OF from &0.WoOW TO S'SoV'V"
a,rsc; tax. he might say-on the peop'e o' ."e
"a e,,,os. and II had been put into the Dill
81 and solely to secure the votes OF senators
.,ssarv for the passage Of the Dill
., o,cn secret that the votes or the Two
,.,ors from Louisiana ana OF the Deino0ia"'
e.o,or from California were necessary TOT the pas
esnA'O ,he hill and that these votes could be Sc
sos xiv nv the proposition TO tax TO such an eX-
W.. ono ~ the prime necessaries OF life. IL was
~, question Of revenue which was ihNoNeu III
~. sugar schedule and never had been. Ana "he"
as,s contemptible juggle" should come u pe
s,o.r 10 the people OF the United states no parry
Gould survive the disgrace ana contempt Ii''o ""'
~ I'D fall on account Of 1t. Mr.. Aldrich went
Sna,cate the principle OF the sugar bounty
% =. or,erad info he said in good faith, ana the
p,,hlicans IN the Senate proposed 10 stand oy IT,
rhsv would Try TO prevent an injustice peins uo'.e
a. tho nsople OF Louisiana and Nebraska through
ns abandonment. When they had accornphsheu
.hs,r duty in that regard their responsibility wouiu
srd He was willing 20 be just TO the people VI
.ho.a sugar communities II they were not willing
- .s, % themselves upon them and upon their
renressntat,yes the consequences would have TO
'A'@ LOUISIANA SENATORS AROUSED.
Mr. canery Dem. La replied to Mr.. Aldrch 1t
Uas true he said that the sugar interest OF Iouisi
ana was INA peculiar and precarous condition
The greatest injury that had ever befailen that
interest had been the imposition Of bounty on
sugar :,
Mr. Allison Rep., Iowa. asked him to explain II
that was the case how it happened that In COM
parson with many previous years there had Oeen
a largely increased production OF sugar IN i|ouiS'
ana since the bounty law went into enect ,..
Mr.. Caffery replied that bounty, whle II nis 81,
be temporarily beneficial was sure to meet us
by the hands of its benehciaries?" Mr.. Allison
by the hands Of the people OF the United States.
Mr. Cafferv asserted lie went on TO say that n.
was Democrat. and desired to see the principles
OF that party succeed. In common with all Demo
cratic Senator'S ne knew that death blow or a
very serious blow would be struck at that party II
Il failed TO pass a revenue bill. bounty, ne sal1'
was utterly repugnant to his idea OF government;
The people Of Louisiana did not want Il; and 1t had
Mr. Wasnburn dep. Mimi asked Sir. Cafrery
where the sugar bounty was unpopular: IL was
certainly not unpopular in the North or West
Mr. Hear rep. Mass remarked that he hal never
heard an objection made to it IN New-Engand
the vote the Hou q R i for
abolition OF the sugar bounty. and he added that ne
t saS de'e' "e''' '"s sugar O'D"''
rs it unpopular in louisiana Mr.. Aldrich asked
ut is unpopular in certain sections Of Louisiana.
MT Caffrey replied. AS principle OF goyernlne';
The people there do not perceive the justice Oh
III, the Senator votes" Mr.. Adrich again inter;
posed as infer he Will. FOR the aor9gaIaon M on
the bounty without knowing what VII happen
TO sugar tnereafter does he think he will, In tnat
ana WIZ '''e sentiment - '''' '~O''0
The sentiment Of louisiana" Mr.. Cafrrey said.
was expressed at the convention or sugar planters
he'd short time ago in New-Orleans. wnen my
conduct and action were indorsed. with the run
knowledge that would vote for this bill with ~
Mr.. Aldrich-Does the Senator think that that is
9 fair answer?
Mr.. CaMery-Yes. a fair answer and full answer.
The controversy on these lines was continued at
much length and taken part in by Senators
Lodge. Hoar and Blanchard.
Mr.. Blanchard admitted that the provisions in
the sugar schedule were not satisfactory 70 the
people OF Louisiana or TO himself but those terms
were the best that could be obtained and he did
not propose to fail into the trap set by the Senator
from Rhode Island by voting for sugar bounty
Mr.. Aldrich replied 10 Mr. Blanchard. The Sen
ators from Louisiana had gwen as reason why
I would not be maintained. He CMr. Aldrich) de-
cared that the bounty would be maintained. not
,niy now but through the future. II the Senators
from Louisiana would vote for 1t. 1t was a qucs-
ton for them 10 decide. and for them alone. They
could not throw the responsibility on the Republi-
cans OF trying 10 desert that bounty II IL were
sorogated. II would be abrogated by It's own bene-
nclares: and when abrogated there would be
no obligation the part OF the Republican party
70 reinstate IT, He wanted that matter TO be fairly
and distinctly understood
OF COURSE. MR. HARRIS CAME INTO IT.
whether he thought 1t particular benefit TO the
taxpayers Of the country 10 give bounty OF
100000 or 100000 a year TO sugar producers
which had been raised by taxation.
question which the Senator from Tennessee could
solve for himself
The Senator from Tennessee" said Mr.. Harris,
has solved IL 10 his satisfaction and would
De glad have the Senator from Rhode Island