St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-01-23
SUGAR IN THE HOUSE.


sugars when exported from q country
which pays
BOUNTY on SUGAR
shall payin addition to these rates aduty
equal to the bounty paid by such connT
try" III
MIR. Robertson explained that the
proposition contained In this amend
ment was not 10 be offered unless the
bounty provisions were voted down.
The equity of the contract made between
the government and the people of
Louisiana demanded that the interests
of the latter should not be stricken down
unless they were placed by sugar duty
i'll position to defend themselves. The
bounty had been placed upon sugar by
the Republicans. he declared, not to
benefit the people of Louisiana, but at
the iDstigation of the sugar refiners. lie
warned the Democrats that the rejection
OF duty on sugar meant an Individual
income tax.
Mr.. Washington (Dem., Tenn.) urged
one cent tax for revenue on the
ground that 1t was the most effective
means of raising the revenue.
Representative Gillett rep. Mass.)
criticised the sugar schedule on the
ground that the taking off of the bounty
took away the constitutional ground of
national expediency on which the sugar
schedule was chiefly sustained.
Mr.. Snodgrass (Dem., Tenn and NAL
Tory (Dem., Fla.) opposed the bounty.
Mr.. Harter (Dem., o. urged that his
substitute should be adopted as means
OF raising revenue, as the treasury was
changing by its eyelids."
The substitute would do away with
the bounty and would save
NINE MILLIONS ANNUALLY
MIR. Bowers (Rep., CALI was opposed
to the abolition of any portion Of the
existing bounty on sugar.
Mr.. Hooker (Dem., MiSs.) favored the
restoration of the sugar duty as in ac-
cordance with the Chicago platform.
Mr.. Warner (Dem., n. " offered an
amendment to MI. Robertson's subStl-
tude to place refined sugar absolutely
on the free list. The object of this
amendment, said he, was to remove the
last ramnapt Of protection which the
pending bill proposed to leave for the
benefit of the sugar trust of New York
city.
Mr.. Simpson Pop, Kan) declared
that the free sugar given by the Nc
Kinley law furnished the best example
of what removal of the onerous pro-
tectiye duties would do for the con-
sumner.
MIR. Hainer (Rep., Neb.) advocated
the retention of the present bounty, and
Mr.. Boatner (Dem., La.), in concluding
the debate for the sugar men, insisted
that the troditions of the Democratic
party should be adhered to and reve.
nue. duty should be placed on sugar.
Mr.. Payne, of New York, said he was
opposed to the restoration of the sugar
duty. because it was tax on the break
fast table. He defended the bounty
provision of the Mex inley law.
Mr.. Wilson concluded the debate in
advocacy of the bounty provision of the
pending bill.
The voting began at APO, after great
deal Of wrangling as to the manner in
which the amendments should be voted
upon, it being decided by the chairman
that he would permit four amendments
to be pending to each Of tue paragraph
$50 and ISL, the first relating to the
bounty on sugar and the latter to the
duty Oh
REFINED SUGAR.
The first vote was taken upon Mr.
MelkeiJ0hn's amendment to substitute
for Mr.. MeRea's amendment to abolish
the sugar bounty, the provisions of the
McKinley law relating to the bounty
This was defeated without division BY
astrict party vote. The vote then re
Cured upon an amendment offered by
Mr.. Price to amend Mr.. Harter's sub
stitute, placing duty of l cent pei
pound on sugar below 16 Dutch stan
dard, and aboliShing the sugar bonnty
by Inserting the provisions OF the Mills
bill, which levied duty on sugar mo-
above ID Dutch standard of i Ills cents
per pound; above 16 Dutch standard
2 20 100, and above 20 Dutch STANDARD
2 $4,000. This amendment had the
support of q ute number of Demo
Gratis, including its author, Bailey, Of
Texas, Hooker. Of Mississippi, and the
members of the Louisiana delegation
The remainder Of the Democrats yotec
against it. For the first time the Re
publicanS showed their hand. declining
to vote at all upon the proposition
which was defeated, 10 to 149. 1.-THE vote
then came upon Mr.. Harter's substitute
which was lost without division. Thi:
made the vote recur upon Mr.. McRae':
original proposition to abolish alto
gether the bounty provisions of the
Wilson bill. Quite a number of the
Republicans, Including Messrs. Can
non, Hopkins, DalZell and Funk, voteG
with the radical Democrats against the
members of the committee for thi.
proposition. Some of the latter were
Springer. Riley, Oates, Brown, John
son, of Ohio; Culberson, Warner, Lay.
ton. Washington, Caruthers, Wise
Everett, Bailey, Mcclure, Hare, Richie
Geary. Harter, Savers, Goldzier anC
Cummings. and it was carried by al
overwhelming majority-135 to 60
This action aDolishes the
BOUNTY ON SUGAR.
The vote was then taken upon The
amendments TO section ISL, providing
for duty on refined sugars Mr. Rob.
ertson's amendment, providing for /;
duty OF from LILO per pound upward
on sugars testing by the polariscope no
above 10 degrees, was offered as tn,
first amendment. To this Mr. Warner
of New ork, offered the amendment tt
place refined sugar, dutiable in the bill
at q cent per pound, on the free list
and after quite lengthy parliamentary
discussion as to the status of pendins
amendments, it being claimed by tht
Louisiana members that a misunder
standing existed owing to a rulins
or the chair, by unanimous con
sent Mr.. Breckenridge, of Kentucky
was allowed to offer substitute
for these two amendments, placin:
a uniform duty of cent PEI
pound upon all sugars below Is Dutcl
Stdhudru. Inc vote was first tdkel
upon Mr.. Warmers amendment to tn,
amendment to abolish the duty on re
fined sugar, and again the radical Dem
ocrats scored another signal victory
the Republicans declining to vote. B,
vote of 1S7 TO SO the duty on refined
sugar was abolished. Among those
who voted for it were Messrs johnson
of Ohio; Coleman, Heard, Springer
Lockwood, Mutchler. McGu ire, Abbott
Martin, Bland and Simpson, while tn,
Louisiana delegation, the members o
the ways and means committee gen
orally, Messrs. Plat, Wise and Cum
mIngs voted against it. The sub
stitute Of Mr.. Breckinrid ge, which was
voted upon next, was defeated by
vote of 144 to 81. The Repub,
Leans not only declined to- ale
those of the Democrats who were seek
Ing to place duty upon sugar by vot
ing with the radical Democrats agains
it. The Democratic supporters of the
breckenridge amendment were unable
to secure enough followers to order tell
erS. At this juncture, amid great con