The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-07-26

could rot support this measure with
out seeking to relieve the conference
of this tax, so obnoxious and oppress-
i've to the people, so criminal in its
purpose. and 30 offensive to the true
principles of Democracy. The tariff
reform measure, in which there was
80 much hope for the future, he con-
! cluded, should not be marred with
the badge of servitude to the sugar
trusts.
Mr.. Caffery in reply to Mr.. Villas
said he was in the senate to guard the
interests of his state. Sugar was its
most staple product. He was not in
terested in the trust, nor was his
people, but the producers of Louis.
lana were also manufacturers of GEN.
trifugal sugars, with which those of
the trust competed and they were en-
titled to the Is of q cent differential.
He declared that in the matter of
tariff reform he was in strict accord
ance with the orthodox tenets of hiA
party. He reviewed the history attE
tude OF the party toward sugk-
duty. iN
A fair revenue duty on sugar now
was what the situation demanded and
all that the sugar producers of Louisi-
ana asked for.
He was Democrat He loved his
p9rty, but if the time came when he
had to choose between his state and
his party he would stand by his state.
If the one.eighth ditferential on re-
fined sugar was stricken cut, he de-
clared in conclusion, he would not
vote for the bill. Mr.. Sherman, re.
plying briefly to Mr.. Caffery, declared
that iii his opinion fiat al valorem
duty of 40 per cent was sufficient to
protect the sugar producers of Louisi-
ana. The sugar producers in his
opinion had no right to complain.
Sugar was offered at higher duty
than any other agricultural product.
Why should the additional 1-Sc be
imposed? Mr.. Palmer, Democrat,
Illinois, proclaimed he was liz favor
of free raw materials and announced
that he would oppose the 1-Sc differ
entail to the sugar trust. He thought
the sugar producers of Louisiana were
in poor company when they joined
hands with the sugar trust. The
partnership should be dissolved.
An identity of interests and divi.
sion of profits do constitute a partner.
ship Mr.. Palmer continued. Protec.
ton was a sham and fraud.
"Did you believe when you moved
to take barbed wire from the free list
and place duty on it that protection
was fraud ?" Asked Mr.. Catfery.
81 did," replied Mr., Palmer amid
laughter.
If the material OUT of which barbed
wire was made had had been on the
free list | should have supported the
proposition to place the wire on the
free list,
Mr.. Palmer said he was in favor of
passing the bill with such modifica-
tiOns as could be obtained. He was
in favor of sending it to the president.
Let the president do his duty as he
understands it. If he thinks this is
better bill than the Mckinley law, let
him sign it; if not, let him veto it. 81
was q senator from Illinos before Mr..
Cleveland was elected president. A
word to the wise is sufficient"
Laughter,
Mr.. Blanchard of Louisiana, who
followed Mr.. Palmer, charged bad
faith on the part of some of the Demo-
cratic senators. He pointed out that
in the Democratic caucus the conces-
sion placed in the senate bill was ass
sented to by ~ Democratic senators.
The 1Sc differential on refined
sugars was one of those. concessions.
The 40 per cent on raw and refined
sugar was another, and the payment
of a bounty for the remainder of the
present year was another. This last
agreement was violated. Mr.. Villas,
who made the motion to strike out the
l-o, was in the caucus, Mr.. BIanch-
ard said, and had made no objection
to it. Somebody" said Mr.. Blanch-
ard, sis not living up 10 his agree.
ment, which is as binding now as it
ever was.n
The Louisiana senator, although the
caucus arrangement had been violated
in the failure to provide for the con-
tinuati6n of the bounty for the re-
mainder of the year, had voted
for the bill with the expecta-
ton that the provision would
be inserted in conference. Mr..
Blanchard called attention to the fact
that Mr.. Hill, who was now in antag-
onism to his position on sugar, was in
the Democratic conference and did not
raise his voice against the sugar
schedule.
1.-THE senator very we'll knows" in.
terrupted Mr.. Hill, "that L dissented
wholly from the conclusions of that
caucus and refused to be bound by il.
did not mention sugar one way or
another.n
CLEVELAND ROASTED.
Mr.. Vest took the floor when NJ,
Hill sat down. After the speech of
the senator from New York, he began,
it was subject of congratulation thar
he and the president had at last found
platform on which both could stand.
The lion and lambs had at last lain
together and were led as q little child
by the ways and means committee.
He left to others to decide which was
the lion and which the lamb. The
senator from New York had said that
free raw materials was cardinal
principle of the Democratic party.
why did not the senator from New.
York vote for free wool?n he asked. "I}
did not vote on several motions wheI
the Dill was in committee" replieG
Mr., HILL hhUt I 6isfipotIy- voted e.