The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-07-26
MIR. QUAY GIVES NOTICE.
He FavOrs Receding from All Pre-
viOus POsitiOn on SuEar Schedule.

WASHINGTON, July 25.-Mr. Quay gave
notice OF three amendments he should
offer to the pending motion before the SEN
ate. These motions will still further COM
plicate the sugar situation. Two of his
amendments will be to instruct the Sem
ate conferees to recede from the entire
sugar schedule. and the third to, recede
from that portion of the schedule which
provides for the one-eighth of a cent per
pound differential refined sugar His
motion Will take precedence of any mo-
tion instructing the conferees to insist
upon the amendments. All motions look
ing to bringing the two houses together
are first in order. Parliamentarians say
that amendments to motions to recede or
30 instruct the conferees to insist on
amendments are not in order but will
nave TO come up as separate propositions.
Mr.. Vest, in the absence of Mr.. Voor-
hees, chairman of the finance committee
who is i'll, called up the conference re-
port the tariff bill. He Immediately
yielded to Mr.. Coke. of Texas, who Sc
cured the passage by unanimous consent
of bill relating to the Arkansas, Texas
q Mexican Railway Company right of
way through the Indian Territory. AT los
hr. Cafery took the floor and resumed
the speech he began yesterday afternoon,
but his remarks did not arouse much in
terest. He spoke principally as to the JUS
tce of the duty on sugar. He plunged
into the discussion of the complicated
methods of refining sugar IN Louisiana,
which sugar went into competition with
the sugars refined by the trust. He con-
tended that the bounty provision of the
Mckinley law prevented the extensive re-
nhlng g or sugar by the producers. He
Ilaue an elaborate argument 60 prove
that. in virtue of the implied contract
made with the sugar producers in the
bounty provision of the existing law the
Louisiana sugar men asked no more than
was their due when they asked for a tar
III ample 10 continue the existence of
tneir Industry. He maintained that a fair
"a Y2lorem rate of 10 per cent. would
prpdncs rTrSn sucent and th protection both to the
the louisiana cane growers, with the new
facilities coming into USE would in dec
auo be able TO hold their own against the
sugar producers of the world. Louisiana,
ne SAID. was Democratic State, and did
reform. but he insisted that in marching
TO TO the goal of tariff reform his party
trate State He would not foul his own
nest. If the tariff reform measure as pre-
pared infringed on his own ideas of what
II should be ne should still vote for it,
unless It struck down his own State.
10 you want a protective duty on
sugar." asked Mr. Stewart, Populist, of
81 do not" replied Mr. Caffery emphatic
ally Il want the duty on sugar laid pure
y
Sented is whether a great industry built
up under a revenue tariff, shall be strick-
en- down by change of theory
In conclusion he said that while the posi-
ton taken by the Louisiana Democrats
might have somewhat alienated them from
their Democratic colleagues, the fire of
Democracy still burned in their breasts
but If tariff reform was pushed too far, he
said it lin sorrow, not in anger" they
would be compelled TO vote against the
measure. He also entered an emphatic pro-
test against the provision in the sugar
schedule continuing in force the Hawaiian
treaty, admitting sugar from those islands
free, which, he said, gave the Sugar Trust
$S000,000 annually. Concluding he said: LAS
a loyal Democrat, the position L have been
obliged to take has almost torn my heart
out, but II the alternative comes my ale
glance to my State is paramount"
Mr.. Hunton said that from the first he
had recognized the necessity for compro-
mise, and ad voted for many amendments
, made that did not reflect his personal
opinions in order 10 get bill that would
command forty-three votes. He believed in
a duty on coal and iron for purely revenue
purposes, with such incidental protection
as followed. He applied the same doctrine
10 sugar that he did to coal. Forty per
cent. on sugar he thought a fair revenue
duty. He was in favor of the one-eighth
differential on refined sugars.