People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1894-01-26
A RIGHT LIVELY DEBATE OVER
It'll THE HOUSE.
SEVERAL AMENDMENTS OFFERED.
McRae Wanted the Bounty Abolished
Entirely, Mecke john Offered the
Provision of the Mckinley Law,
and Then Followed Some
Hawaiian Correspondence
and Row.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23.-The fight to
amend the sugar schedule of the
Wilson bill in the house to-day opened
Immediately after the reading of the
journal.
The first amendment was that Of
fered by Mr.. McRae to abolish entire
ly the sugar bounty. In support
of his amendment he said that
it 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 treasury was pro-
posing to borrow money at five per
cent interest was no time to pay
special bounty to any interest. He
had no personal feeling against the
section of the country to be affected,
but he did not conceive that Demo
cratic congress should perpetuate this,
the most vicious provision of the
Mckinley law. The bounty would
cost the people of the country as it
stood S5O,OOO,OOO. The bounty last
year cost SlOOOO,OOO. He contended
that the bounty was unconstitutional
and undemocrat!c and should be
abolished.
Mr.. Meikeljohn offered as an amend
ment to that of Mr.. McRae, the sugar
bounty provision of the Mckinley law.
This, 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, $50,
900 in louisiana, SIS, 100000 in Califor-
MIA and S1O,OOO,OOO in Florida If the
provisions. of the Wilson bill were
passed this great industry would be
destroyed and would be placed at the
mercy of foreign producers of sugar,
ut the same time giving to the sugar
trust protection of fifty per cent OF
quarter of one cent on every pound Of
refined sugar.
Mr. Dockery, Democrat of Missouri
offered as a substitute for the amend
mentS a proposition to abolish the
bounty on sugar and place the raw
and refined sugar on the free list. L
there was anything, said he, on which
the Democracy wanted unity, it was
opposition to this bounty. The beet
sorghum and maple sugar. bountie'
were petty larce Y, while the bounty
on cane sugar rose to the dignity O
grand larceny.
Mr.. Boatner of Louisiana, wanted t.
know why Mr.. Dockery did not strike
down all duty and all protection OF
cotton and wooden goods and all othel
articles and place them on the fire,
list.
Mr.. Dockery replied that all reform
could not be accomplished in a day
The farmers who followed the plov
did not demand bounty on wheat O
corn. All they wanted was an equa
chance in the race of life.
Mr.. Cannon of Illinois supported
Mr.. Meikeljohn's amendment. TIL
free sugar clause of the Mckinley Law
had saved the people of the country
rich and poor alike, annually, from s
to Sl.25 per capita.
In the midst of the debate some Ha
waiian correspondence was presented
Then Mr.. Boutelle created scene an
was only quoted by the mace. H
made the point of no quorum and tn
Republicans supported him. 1t locke
as though no quorum could be foun
and that the tariff debate would b
suspended. Committee rooms an
restaurants and Hobbies were Gale
on for members and finally a bea
quorum was secured and the suga
debate was continued.
L Mr.. Price of Louisiana, asserted thu
the duty had been changed to boul
ty against the protests of Louisian;
abolition of the bounty now woul
crush the industry which should NJ
be treated more harshly than otht
industries.
Mr.. Dockery withdrew his amenC
ment and Harter of Ohio, offered
substitute to abolish the bounty ar
impose aduty of one cent pound.
Mr.. Gear, the newly elected low
senator, spoke in favor of an amen
ment to make the reduction of tt
bounty begin in 1898 instead of 1s9
Mr.. Bryan of Nebraska, spoke for tt
committee bounty.