The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-01-24
Bounty Wiped ont.


The vote then came up on Mr.. Har-
/ ter's substitute, which was lost without
division. This made the vote recur upon
Mr.. McRae's original proposition TO
abolish altogether the bounty provisions
of the Wilson bill. Quite a number of
the republicans including Messrs. Can
non, Hopkins, Dalzell and Funk, voted
with the radical democrats against the
members of the committee for this prop
osition. Some of them were Springer,
Riley, Oates, Brown, Johnson of Ohio;
Culberson, Warner, Layton, Washing
ton, Caruth, Wise. Stone, Everett,
Bailey, Mcguire, Hare Ritchie, Geary,
Harter, Sayers, Goldzier and Cummings,
and it was carried by an overwhelming
majority-135 to 90. This action abol-
ishes the bounty on sugar.
The vote was then taken upon the
amendments TO sec. 1S1, providing for
a duty on refined sugars. Mr.. Robert
sons amendment, providing for duty
of from lilo cent per pound upward on
sugars testing by the polarscope not
above 70 degrees, was offered as the
first amendment To this Mr.. Warner
of New York offered the amendment TO
place refined sugar, dutiable in the bill
at I4c per pound, on the free list, and
after quite a lengthy parliamentary dis
cussion as to the status of pending
amendments, 1t being claimed by the
Louisiana members that misunder-
standing existed, owing to a ruling OF
the chair by unanimous consent Mr..
Breckinridge Of Kentucky was allowed
70 offer a substitute for these two
amendments. placing a uniform duty OF
/ cent per pound upon all sugars below
Is Dutch standard. The vote was first
taken upon Mr. Warmers amendment TO
the amendment to abolish the duty on
refined sugar. and again the radical
democrats scored a signal victor, the
republicans declining To vote.
Duty on Refined Sugar Abolished.
By a vote of 137 to 50 the duty on re-
fined sugar was abolished. Among those
who voted for it We're Messrs. Johnson
OF Ohio Coleman, Heard Springer,
lockwood. MutchleT. Mcguire. Abbott,
Martin. Bland and Simpson, while the
Louisiana delegation, the members Of
the ways and means committee general
". MeSsrs. Platt, Wise and Cummings,
voted against il. The substitute of Mr..
Breckenridge, which was voted upon
next was defeated by a vote of
IA To 81. The republicans declined 10
aid those of the democrats who were
seeking to place duty upon sugar by
voting with the radical democrats
Complete TnngIe.
The democratic supporters of the
Breckinridge amendment were unable
to secure enough followers to order tell
eI-s. At this juncture, amid great con-
fusion. the time came to take the final
vote upon Mr.. Robertson's amendment
as amended by Mr.. Warmers amend
ment. great deal of misunderstand-
ing existed upon the floor as TO what
the effect of the adoption Of the amend
ed proposition would mean. Tie repub-
licans were hilarously joyful at the
tangle into which they had gotten the
democrats. Mr.. Payne shouting out that
if the pending proposition was adopted
it would have the very incongrUous ef-
feet OF placing raw sugar on the duu-
able list and refined sugar on the free
list.
AIR Richardson, who was in the chair.
was appealed TO i'm vain to state the
effect of the adoption of the pending
amendment. So much misunderstand
ing existed even among some of the
most skillful parliamentarians on both
sides, that Mr.. Wilson finally decided,
amid great confusion. to move that the
committee rise IN order To give every
body an opportunity TO examine over
night into the parliamentary situation,
and accordingly. at $40. the committee
rose and the house recessed until S
o'clock.
At the night session the following
members spoke: BrOokshire. Nc
Creary. Goldzier of Illinois; Broderick
Of Kansas. Hilbert of California and
Avery of Michigan.