The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-23
Some Republicans Refused to Vote and
the Radical Democrats Had Things
Their Own Way, 135 TO 90.
REFINED SUGAR TO BE FREE
Duty Taken Off by Purely Demo-
cratic Vote Of 137 to 80.
Income Tax Scheme Changed and Made
More Strict as to Corporations, at
Mr.. Bynum's Suggestion.
Special to the indianapolis Journal.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22.-The bounty on
sugar must go at once. Such was the edict
of the House of Representatives this after
noon. The ways and means committees
scheme of slow death did not please the ma
jority, and AN amendment offered by AIR.
McRae to abolish the bounty when the VIII
son tariff bill takes effect was carried by
the surprising vote of lS5 to 90. 1t was also
decided to kill the refining industry by
placing refined sugar on the free list. \
motion to that effect was carried by a vote
OF 137 to 81. Before the close Of the day,
however, the Republicans got the major
ity into such a tangle that Mr.. Wilson was
compelled TO take a breathing spell to find
where he was at"
When the House went into committee OF
the whole this morning the first amend
ment offered was one by Mr.. McRae 10
abolish entirely the sugar bounty. In sup
port of his amendment Mr.. McRae said
that it proposed TO abolish entirely the
sugar bounty and leave sugar the free
list, where it was placed by the Mckinley
law. A time when the treasury was bank
rupt and the Secretary OF the Treasury
was proposing TO borrow money at 5 per
cent interest was no time TO pay special
bounty to any interest He had no per.
sonal feeling against the section OF the
country to be affected, but he did not con-
ceive that a Democratic Congress would
perpetuate this, the most vicious provision
of the Mckinley bill. The bounty would
cost the people OF the country, said Mr..
McRae, as it stood, $50, OOO The bounty
last year cost s10.000.OO0. He contended that
the bounty unconstitutional and un-
Democratic, and should be abolished
Mr.. Aeikeljohn offered amendment
to that of Mr.. McRae the sugar bounty pro-
vision of the Mckinley law. The bounty
provision of the Mckinley law, he said,
had been passed to afford an opportunity
for American capital. The purpose OF that
act had been fulfilled. 1t had resulted in a
vast investment of capital-S15O. 100000 In
Louisiana, sl5,OOOOOO in California and $lO.-
100000 in Florida If the provisions of the
Wilson bill We're passed this great industry
will be destroyed and we will be placed at
the mercy of foreign producers OF sugar,
at the same time giving TO the Sugar Trust
a protection OF 90 per cent, or oDe-quarter
of / cent on every pound Of refined sugar.
Mr.. Dockery offered as substitute for
both amendments a proposition TO abolish
raw sugar on the free list. If there was
anything, sand Mr.. Dockery, on which he
thought the Democracy wanted unity IL
was opposition to this bounty. The beet,
sorghum and maple sugar bounties We're
petit larceny, while the bounty on cane
sugar rose TO the dignity of grand larceny.
Mr.. Boatner wanted to know why Mr..
Dockery did not strike down all duty and
all protection on cotton and wooden goods
and all other articles and place them on
the free list. The latter replied that all
reform could not be accomplished in a day.
The farmers who followed the plough did
not demand a bounty on wheat or corn.
All they wanted was an equal chance In
the race of life.
CANNON FOR FREE SUGAR.
Mr. Cannon, Of Illinois, supported Mr..
Meikeljohn's amendment. The free-sugar
clause of the Mckinley bill has saved the
people of the country, rich and poor alike.
annually from 81 to $125 per capita II was
now proposed to throw away the revenue,
starve the industry in this country and
ultimately cause the price to advance to
the American consumer. II the Democrats
were honest why not this revenue
article placed on the dutiable list? That
would be in line with tariff for revenue
Mr.. Breckinridge, Of Arkansas. sup
ported the bounty provision or the Wilson
Mr.. Price then took the floor to make
the principal speech in behalf Of the Lou
isiana and from district particularly
identified with the cane sugar industry.
he begged the indulgence of the House
while he recounted the history Of that
industry. He traced it step by step In
17S9 before Louisiana became State OF
the Union, the duty was laid. The indus
try grew until 1860 when il reached l5O,V0O
hogsheads. The civil war with fits devasta-
tion ruined It, and in 1854 bat 10000 hogs
heads were produced. After the war the
| people Of Louisiana went TO work under
| Industry and in 1890 the production had
reached that Of 1860. and was. 10000 The
policy of the government was then changed
| over the protest Of every Representative
I'm Louisiana. and a bounty or cents per
pound was substtutea rot the uutS, snd ms ms
production increased to over 5eoVW nogs,,
| heads. To abolish this bounty now would
| crush that industry and bring povery
and distress not only 10 the sugar planters,
| but to those interests benefited as dis
mr Hsrter was recognized at this point
| and offered a substitute for the proposed
amendments, that OF oii:b M; tpe bo;,,t~ an5
substitute duty OF l cent per pound
| to be Increased to cents from sucn coun-
tries as levied an export duty.
GEAR APPLAUDED.
Mr.. Gear rose from his seat and was
| racoSnized at the conclusion of the read
| ing of Mr.. Harter's amendment. AS the
| Chair recognized him the Republican sid
| broke into cheers, which were quickly
| taken up on the Democratic SIDE and for
| several minutes the demonstration con-
tinued Mr. Gear offered an amendment to
| make a reduction Of the bounty. begin
ming 1925 instead OF 1895. He explained the
| effect OF the free sugar and sugar bounty
| provisions Of the Mckinley law. Free
sugar he said saved the people OF the
country $4,000, 600, and had increased the
| consumption Of sugar from fifty 10 sixty
pounds per capita
Mr.. Bryan, in support OF the bounty pro-
| vision OF the Wilson bill, denied the right
| OF any Congress 20 bind future Congresses.
The Fifty-frst Congress could not bind
| Congress for fifteen years TO continue the
bounty IL IL could il could have pound
| Congress for hundred years. As mat
| ter of fact he doubted whether the Fltty-
| first Congress could raise a moral 0biga-
| ton OF any kind. G-aughter) Instead OF
| replacing the duty sugar and thus tax
| ing the consumer Of sugar in the United
States he favored giving the people the
| benefit OF free sugar and raising the rev.
enue from an income tax.
At this point, on motion OF Mr.. Turner,
the committee rose and the Speaker laid
before the House the special message OF
| the President transmitting additional Ha-
waiian correspondence. After II had been
read and referred. and the Speaker had
| subdued Mr.. B0utelle, as noted elsewhere,
| the tariff debate was resumed under
agreement TO extend the time OF the sugar
| bounty discussion till i:l5 y. N.
Mr.. Dingley and Mr.. Mercer supported
The present bounty, and Mr. Tarsney de-
Tended the bounty provision OF the Wilson
bill