The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-08-27

ST Louis, Aug. 26.-In a special dis
patch to the Republic from Little Rock,
Senator j. K. Jones gives a history of
the recent tariff bill contest.
The SENATOR it will be remembered,
was member of the subcommittee to
which the bill was first referred. In his
statement Senator Jones says in part:
1.-THE bill, as first reported back to
the committee by us, may be consider
ed as an expression of the opinions of
our subcommittee unmodified by the
views of our associates in the Senate.
''While a majority of the Democrats
in the Senate were perfectly satisfied
with the bill. a number complained of
different parts of it and in an effort
for harmony we presented another.
While there were changes in a number
of the schedules of more or less i'm
portance, this second report of ours
provided also for free sugar, free coal
and free iron ore"
Sugar Senator's Demands.
The senator relates the persistent de-
mands of senator's representing sugar
interests. The members of the sub
committee, with great reluctance and
regret, submitted a further change in
the bill imposing a tariff ranging from
on all sugar, with no additional tax on
| refined sugar, proposing a tax of 5
cents per ton on coal, and iron ore free,
hoping thereby to secure united DEM
ocratic action. At the caucus of Demo-
cratic senators, which lasted three
days, the senators from Louisiana, es
pecially Senator White, spoke against
| the bill.
cat the same time senators in those
rr-Ia oriac IL
Gated, declared that they could not sup
iport the bill without some tariff on re-
| fined sugar, If there was a tariff on the
raw. The result of this protracted and
! stormy caucus was the adoption of a
| resolution sending the bill to the COM
mittee with instructions to amend it so
as to meet the differences which had
| been developed in caucus. In obedience
! to this action Of the caucus, which was
really equivalent to an order to tan
! sugar, coal and Iron ore, we brought
| in bill with tax of 1 cent rer pound
on sugar testing 80 degrees by the po-
| lariscope and cent additional for each
| degree up to 80, and 81 cent for each
| degree above 80 and up TO 49, and up
| on sugar above Is Dutch standard in
color an additional tax of u cent per
pound. With these changes with coal
! and iron ore 4 cents per ton, the bill
|
/ The changes gave no satisfaction and
| it became evident that the bill would
be defeated if insisted upon. In this
emergency / determined to see if there
was not some means of saving the
bill.
Hills Hostility.
Senator Hill, one of the forty-four
democrats in the Senate, was openly
hostile to the bill. To pass the bill
| would require forty-three votes, hence
it was necessary that every one of the
remaining forty-three votes be secured
for the support of the bill. Several of
these had already openly declared that
they could not and would not vote for
the bill as reported, and it was decided
to amend 1t so as to secure their sup
iport. These modifica tons involved
changes of the sugar schedule from a
specific to an ad yalorem duty. the i'm
Iposition of an additional tax of one
tenth of one cent per pound upon all
sugars imported from countries paying
lbounties. and the bill could not become
operative until the first day OF Janu-
airy, 1895, the taxes on iron and ore al
40 cents per ton and changes III the
textile and other schedules OF more OIL
less importance"
Before the amended bill was reported
back to the committee, Senator jones
/ =
land. Secretary Carlisle and members
lof the Finance committee explaining
the necessity for making the changes
mentioned They all agreed as to the
ladvisability of doing SO, and a caucus
lof Democratic senators decided to sup
Iport the bill as amended. From May
II, when the amendm ants were offered
Ito July 3, when the bill finally passed
the Senate, the forty-three Democrats
Istood together like a stone wall arc
redeemed their pledges like men, with
lbut d single break.
/ Improvement on Mckinleyism.
"There are many things in the Sen
late bill not satisfactory to me. If
lcould have had my own way, L woulc
Ihave raised the revenue needed from
incomes, whisky, beer and tobacco, ano
mot from sugar or from wooden goods
and when imposing a tax on sugar
would not have imposed any extra ta1
lon refined sugar I resisted all these
lchanges with ill my power, as did my
colleague on the subcommittee, Se1a
tor Vest and we made them as small
las possible and at last only accepted
such as were absolutely necessary t
1.-THE passage of the bill. The bill as
lpassed, however, is a great departure
from McKinleyism and is a great meas
ure of tariff reform"