St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-01-23
SUGAR IN The HOUSE
Bounty on the Sweet Article
Entirely Abolished
BY THE VOTE OF 1876 TO SO.
Government Will Save About
Ten Millions Annually.
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE HEARD,
Refined Sugar Is Placed on
the Free List.
4 BLACK EYE fOR THE TRUST

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22.-The fight to
amend the sugar schedule of the Wilson
bill was made in the house today. 1t
opened Immediately after the reading
of the journal, according to the agree
ment reached last Friday, by which
three hours were set aside for this pur-
pose. Before the first amendment was
offered some discussion was had as to
whether the amendments should lie to
each of the three sections of the Wilson
bill schedule separately, the bounty
provision, the duty of five-twentieths Of
cent on refined sugar above No. l6,
Dutch standard. and the duty of 80 per
cent on sugar candy and confectionery,
and of Is per cent on grape sugar.
Pending an agreement as to the mode
of procedure, Mr. Hit (Rep., Ill.) with
drew the amendment pending last Sat-
nrday with reference to reciprocity with
Canada on free coal. Then, after fur
ther consultation. the sugar men, repre-
sented by Mr.. Blanchard, withdrew
their first proposition, and asked that
time be divided into three parts-an
hour for those in favor of the bounty
provision. one for those who favor the
bounty provision of the Mckinley law,
and an hour for those who favor
A DUTY ON SUGAR.
Mr.. McRae objected because this az
rangement gave no time to those who
were for free sugar and no bounty. 1t
was finally agreed, however, that the
Louisiana members. who were most in
terested. should have an hour, and the
remainder of the house should take
chances of recognition of the chair
during the other two hours.
The first amendment was that offered
by Mr.. McRae (Dem., Ark to abolish
entirely the sugar bounty. In support
OF this amendment Mr. McRae said that
1t proposed to abolish entirely the sugar
bounty and leave sugar on the free list,
where it was placed by the Mckinley
law. A time when the treasury was
bankrupt and the secretary of the treas
ury was proposing to borrow money at
5 per cent interest was no time to pay a
special bounty to any interests. He
had no personal feeling against the sec
ticn of the country to be affected, but
he did not conceive that a Democratic
congress would perpetuate this, the
most vicious provision of the Mckinley
bill.
The bounty would cost the country,
said MIR. McRae. as it stood, $50, 1000, OO0
The bounty last year cost 100000
He cOntended that the bounty was un-
constitutional and undemOcratic, and
should be abolished. Mr.. Meiklejohn
offered as an amendment to that of Mr..
McRae the sugar bounty provision of
the Mckinley law. The bounty pro-
vision of the Mckinley law, he said,
had been passed to afford an opportun-
ity for
AMERICAN CAPITAL.
The purpose of that act had been full
filled. 1t had reaulted in vast invest
ment of capital-S150,O OO0, 600 in Louisi-
ana, S15,000.00O in California, and SlO,-
100000 in Florida.
Ii the provision of the Wilson bill
were passed, this great industry would
be destroyed, and we would be placed
at the mercy of foreign prod ucers of
sugar, at the same time giving to the
sugar trust a protection of 80 per cent,
or quarter of one cent on every pound
of refined sugar.
Mr.. Dockery (Dem., MOI offered as a
substitute for amendments a pr oposi.
ton to abolish the bounty on sugar, and
place the raw and refined sugar on the
free list.
If there Is anything, said Mr.. Dock.
cry, in which he thought the Demo.
cratic party wanted unity, it was oppo
sition to this bounty, The beet, sorg
hum and maple sugar bounties were
petty larceny, while the bounty ON cane
sugar rose to the dignity of grand
larceny.
Mr.. Boatner Dem., La.) wanted tc
know why Mr.. Dockery did not strike
down all duty and all protection OH cot
ton and woolen goods and all other art
icles and place them on the free list.
The latter replied that all reforms
could not be accomplished in a day
The farmers who follow the plow dld
not demand a bounty on wheat anc
corn. All they wanted was an equa
chance in the race of life.
Mr.. Canyon rep, Ill. supported Mr.
Meiklejohn's amendment. The free
sugar clause of the Mckinley law hac
saved the people of the country, ricf
and poor alike, annually from 81 to 81. 2!
per capita.
1t was now proposed to throw away
the revenue, starve the industry in thi:
country and ultimately cause the price
to advance to the
AMERICAN CONSUMER.
If the Democrats were honest, VIII,
was not this revenue article placed OF
the dutiable list? That would be in lin,
with a tariff for revenue only.
Mr. Preckinridge Dem., Ark.) sup
ported the bounty provision of the vii
Bon bill. Sugar in the Mckinley Law
was only free up to No. 16 Dutch stand
ard. There were two ways oe deter
mining the grades of sugar, by color O
by quantity of saccharine matter. Th
Mckinley law had accepted the colo
test. Sugar under No. 16 Dutch stand
ard was not used on the American table
Above that standard the Mckinley Law
placed duty Of one-half cent pc
pound. This duty was reduced in th
Wilson bill to one-fourth cent. Suga
vas freer under this bill than under tn.
Mckinley law. With reference to th
bounty ne said that no man could say
word in depreciation of bounty, direc
or indirect, which would not meet hi
hearty approval. 1t did openly what