The herald., 1894-01-23

adopted as y means of raising revenue,
as the treasury wac changing by its eye
lide."
Bowers (Rep., OF California was OPP
posed to the abolition of any portion OF
the existing bounty on sugar.
Hooker (Dsm.) of Mississippi favored
the restoration OF the sugar duty, as in
accordance with the Chicago platform.
Warner Deru.) of New York offered
an amendment to place refined sugar
absolutely on the free lint.
Simpson (Pop.) of Kansas declared
that the freq sugar given by the Mckin-
ley law furnished the best example OF
what the removal of an one-ous pro-
tective duty would do for the consumer.
Blanchard JDem.) of Louisiana said it
was now the duty of the Democratic
party. whose last platform had declared
for q revenue tariff, to restore the duty
on sugar.
Hainer (Rep.) OF Nebraska advocated
the retention OF the present bounty.
Boatner (Dem.) of Louisiana, in con-
Guiding the debate for the sugar men,
insisted that the traditions OF the Demo-
cratic party should be adhered to, and
revenue duty placed on sugar. Had
Louisiana realized her great industry
was to be stricken down, her vote would
not have been given Cleveland at the
last election.
PAYNE (Rep.) of New York opposed
the restoration OF the sugar duty, be-
cause il was q tex on the breakfast table;
he defended the bounty provision OF the
Mckinley law.
Mr.. Wilson concluded the debate in
advocacy of the bounty provision of the
pending bill.
Voting began at 4:20. after a great
deal of wrangling as to the manner In
which the amendments voted upon be-
ing decided by the. chairman. He
would permit four amendments to be
pending to each OF the paragraphs $50
and ISL, the first relating to bounty on
sugar, and the latter to refined sugar.
The frat vote was taken upon Nickel
Johns amendment to gu Institute the pro-
visions of the Mckinley Law. 1t was
defeated without division by strict
party vote.
The vote then required on the amend
ment of Price, inserting the provisions
of the Mills bill. This amendment had
the support Of quite number of Demo-
Gratis, including the author. Bailey,
Hooker and members of the Louisiana
delegation. The remainder of the DEM
ocrats voted against it. For the first
time Republicans showed their hand
by declining to vote at all upon the
proposition, which was defeated, 19 to
las.
The vote then came up on Harter's
substitute, which was lost without
division.
This made the vote recur upon Nc
Ras's original proposition to abolish
altogether the bounty provisions OF the
Wilson bill. Quite a number of Re-
publicans, including Cannon, Hopkins,
Dalzell and Funk, voted with the radical
Democrats against the members of the
committee for this proposition. Some
of them were: Springer, Riley, Oates,
Brown, johnson of Ohio. Culberson,
Warren. Layton. Washington, Caruth,
Wise. Stone, Everett, Bailey, Mcguire,
Hare, Ritchie, Geary, Harter, Sayres,
Golazier and Cummings, and was car.
ried by the overwhelming majority OF
1876 to SO. This action sbolishez the
bounty on sugar.
A vote was then taken upon the
amendments to section ISL, providing
for duty On refined 5ngsfs. Robert
sons proposition providing for duty
from one-teEth of cent per pound up
ward on sugars testing by palariscope
not above 70 degrees, was offered as the
first amendment To this Warner Of
fered an amendment to place refined
sugar on the free list, and after quite a
lengthy parliamentary discussion as to
the status OF the pending amendments,
it being claimed by the Louisiana mem
bers that misunderstanding existed,
owing TO the ruling OF the chair, by
unanimous consent Breckinridge of
Kentucky was allowed to offer sub
stituta for the two amendments, plac-
ing O uniform duty of one cent upon
all augarc below 16 Dutch standard.
A vote was first taken upon Warmers
amendment to abolish the duty on re-
fined sugar, and again the radical DEM
ocrats scored another signal victory, the
Republicans declining to vote. By a
vote Of 1877 to 81 the duty on refined su-
gar was abolished. Among those who
voted for it were, johnson OF Ohio,
Coleman, Heard, Springer, Lockwood,
Bland while the Louisiana delegation,
committee generally, Platt, Wise and
Cummings, voted against it.
The substitute OF Breckenridge was
defeated 144 to 81. The Democratic
supporters of the Breckinridge amend
ment were unable to secure enough fol-
lowers to order t9llers.
At this juncture. amid great confu.
sioh, the time came to take the fnal
vote upon Robertson's amendment, as
amended by Warmers amendment. A
great deal OF Misunderstanding existed
upon the floor az to what effect the
adoption of the amended proposition
would mean. The Republicans were
hilsriously joyful at the rangle into
which they had gotten the Democrats
Payne shouted out that if the pending
proposition was adopted it would have
the very incongruous effect of placing
raw sugar on the outiable list and re-
fined sugar on the free list. Richard
son, who was in the chair, was appealed
to in vain to state the effect of the
adoption OF the pending amendment
So much misunderstanding existed
even among some of the most skillfu
parliamentarians on both sides thai
Wilson finally decided, amid great con
fusion, to move that the committee rise
in order to give everybody an oppor
itunity to examine over night into the
parliamentary situation, and accord
ingly, at 5 40, the committee rose and
the house recessed until O'Clock.
At the night session the following
mem bers spoke: Brookshire, McCreary
Goldzier, Broderick, Hilborn and Avery
The Internal Revenue Bill.
Ea.x