Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-06-06
BILL OF BARGAINS.
The Sugar Trust Scored a
Point in Senate
Yesterday, and Can Lay in Supply
Free Of Duty.
Repeal Of State Bank Tax Not Recognized a.
Panacea.

2. NJ, the discussion on the sugar sched-
ule was interrupted by the Vice President
with the declaration that the hour had ar
rived for taking the vote on the amendment
offered by Jones, postponing the repeal of
the sugar bounty provision from July l.,
1894, to January l, 1895.
The vote was taken by yeas and nays and
the amendment was agreed to-Yeas, IS ;
nays, 81. PETER voted with the Repubh-
cans. Manderson offered an amendment
to continue sugar bounty in full force in
effect until July /, 1895, rejected-yeas,
AZ; nays, 40.
Then Msnderson offered another amend
ment reducing the sugar bounty annually
one tenth and providing that with modifcs-
ton it would continue in force till 1905.
This was also rejected-yess "a. nays 81.
Senators Allen, Kyle and PETER voted with
the Republicans. Hill of New York did not
| vote.
The next amendment offered by Mander-
son was to confine the payment of the
sugar bounty to the producers of beet and
sorghum sugars only. This was rejected,
81 to 50.
Still another amendment by Henderson
cutting down the sugar bounty to l cent a
pound and confining it to beet and sorghum.
| This was also rejected, "a to 81.
During the discussion of the sugar sched-
ule Higgins argued against the Jones amend
ment postponing the time for the sugar
schedule to 60 into effect, characterizing it
as the last dreadful act of extortion which
this bill proposes to perpetrate on the Amer
lean people.
| Chandler argued against the amendment.
The trainers of the bill, he said, pretended
it was necessary to have more revenue, yet
they deliberately threw away the duties on
a half years supply of sugar 1925 900, ,000)
There was no real reason that could be
given for this, except to enable the sugar
| trust to import a years supply of sugar
without paying the duty, and to get (after
the first of January next the full benefit
of the increased value of sugar about cent
pound.
Mr.. Frye remarked satirically that
the Senator from New Hampshire
was seriously mistaken in demanding
| for the pending measure a rule that could
apply to ordinary legislation. The senator
ought to know that this was most extraordi-
nary legislation; that the bill itself was an
anomaly; if it passed the Senate at all it
would pass without having single senator
III
| truth of Mr.. Fryes statement. The bill
he said, was bill of bargains. The bill
was being forced through by some mysteri-
GUS power behind the throne.
| Mr.. Aldrich said three statements of the
character and rates of duties on sugar were
made to the Senate-one by Mr.. German
that the duty on refined sugar, in excess of
duty on raw sugar, is One-eighth of a cent
per pound; one by Mr.. Vest making it one
| fourth of a cent per pound, and one by Mr..
Jones of Arkansas making it one-ffth of a
cent; so there was complete misunder-
standing among the senators responsible for
the measure as to its effect.
Mr.. Vest said that during the tendency
of the Mckinley tariff law there was a
duplicate of the present condition-the
same lies, the same attacks upon public
men, the charge that the committee on
ways and means in the House was receiv-
ing representatives of refners through the
back door, the charge that the Senate
finance committee was being improperly in-
| fluenced. Mr.. Hale declared there was no
such condition in 1890 as the "lamentablc"
condition of the present year. Everybody
knew the Mckinley act passed without
such transactions as are taking place now =,
There was then no scandal tainting the
cir" as now.
Vest contradicted Hale's statement and
referred to articles from Republican news
papers in 1890, condemning the action of
the Senate in increasing the protection to
sugar interests from Is cents per hundre d
pounds to 60 cents. Aldrich denied that the
Senate had raised the duties in 1890 from
| l6 to G0c per 100 pounde.
eaThere was considerable discussion and
several amendment we're voted down.
Paragraph 1873 was amended by increas-
ing the duty on sugar candy, ETC., from 80
to 35 per cent. ad valorem by adding the
words "saccharine % per cent. ad valo-
rem." That finished the sugar schedule
and brought the Senate up to the tobacco
schedule (F). Senate adjourned.
In the House.
WAsHISGToS, June 5.-The substitute
for the Brawley state bank tax bill applying
only to violations of the law in Southern
states, and an amendment to repeal the tax
law outright, was laid before the House. A
vigorous discussion resulted in a formal
division of time between the two sides.
Harter Dem of Ohio to control the hour
in favor of the repeal of the state bank tax,
and Dingley (Rep.) of Maine to control the
hour in opposition to the report. In the
course of the debate Campbell Dem
of New York had read a letter from
Conrad W. Jordan, ex-United States treas
CONTINUED on I'd page.]