Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1894-06-07
ADOPTED.
Compromise Amendments to the
Sugar Schedule Passed.
THE DEBATE on The SUGAR TRUST.


depended went through without
change. On the vital amendment to
| place all sugars on the free list the
democratic line was drawn, Mr.. Hill,
of New York, voting In favor
Of II and Mr.. Irby, Of South
Carolina, being paired the same way.
But the republicans were unable
to hold their own forces intact,
Messrs. Henderson and Perkins voting
against the amendment, and Mr.. Quay
being paired against II, while Mr.. Sher-
man, who was present, did not vote at
all. Only one OF the populists, Mr..
| PETER, voted for free sugar. Messrs.
Kyle and Allen, in the final issue, join
Ing with the majority of democrats
against IL. Had all the republicans,
with the three populists and the two
disaifected democrats, joined hands
sugar, raw and refined, would have
gone on the Gree list. On all the other
amendments offered by the republic.
ans the majority against them ranged
from three to ten. The adoption OF
the sugar schedule practically insures
the passage of the bill at an early date,
although II is intimated that the re-
publicans will make final stand on
the sugar schedule when the bill Is re-
ported and considered in the senate.
As adopted yesterday the schedule
imposes duty of 40 per cent. adj
valorem on all sugars, raw and refined,
with n differential of one-eighth OF a
cent per pound on sugars above 10
Dutch standard, and an additional one
tenth of cent against sugars inn
ported from countries paying an ex-
port bounty. II continues the Hawai-
ian treaty admitting sugars from the
Sandwich islands free of duty, and
places duty of cents per gallon on
molasses testing above 40 degrees by
the polariscope. The schedule goes
into effect January l. 1895, and the
bounty is continued until that date.
Before the voting began Mr.Aldrich,
abiding TO the statements made yester-
day in regard TO the alleged influence
of the sugar trust In framing the tariff
bill, said that while there was n sugar
trust in 1890, II was not the gigantic
concern IL Is now and speculation in its
shares was comparatively trivial.
Mr.. Vest retorted that In three weeks
then the shares went up thirty-five
INAhNN AhNip Ndn NANAls h' NtlAls iilt
same lies, the same falsiflcations, the
same attacks on public men that had
characterized the consideration of the
pending bill.
Mr.. Sherman also insisted that the
trust Of 1890 was not the trust of to-
day.
do you know what the capital OF
the sugar trust of 1890 WASP" asked
MIR. lirice.
II do not, replied Mr.. sherman.
LIT was $4,000, OOO," said Mr.. Brice.
The stocls/of that corporation went
up from 90 10 30. The stock advanced
SaO,OOO,OJO by virtue of the action of
your committee"
between what periods did this
huctuation occur?' asked Mr.. Aldrich.
between May and October" replied
Mr.. lirice omphatically, adding, ms he
turned ON his heel, after the ropre-
sontatives OF the trust had made their
agreement with those who controlled
the bill"
Mr.. Aldrich protested that he did
not understand what the senator from
Ohio meant by AN agreement existing
between the sugar trust and those in
power In 1890. but he did know that
the sugar trust had dictated the sugar
schedule in The present bill.
"Who dictated the 80 cent. protection
in the Mckinley bill?' inquired Mr..
Vest passionately.
mo one"
"The sugar trust" said Mr.. Vest,
"and you yourself admitted II In the
record. You said you could not resist
the arguments of the Philadelphia
sugar retiners."
In the midst OF this sensational de-
bate the hour of 1 o'clock arrived, and
under the agreement, the vote was
taken ON Mr. Jones amendment fixing
January |, 1895, as the date on which
the repeal of the sugar bounty should
go into effect, and II was adopted yeas,
40; nays, 81.
Mr.. Allison offered an amendment to
reduce the sugar bounty for the re-
mainder of the calendar year TO eight
tenths of cent per pound and to make
the sugar schedule take effect immedi-
ntely ON the passage of the bill. The
three populists this time voted with
the democrats. There was no break in
party lines and it was defeated, 80
TO 30.
The senate then passed 20 the next
paragraph, is2]6, fixing the duty on
sugar. Mr.. Jones offered the com
promise amendment, fixing the duty
on raw and refined sugar at 40 per
cent. nd valorem with differential
OF one-eighth of one cent on sugars
above 10, Dutch standard, and an adj
ditional one-tenth ON sugar imported
from countries giving an export boun-
~, continuing the Hawaiian treaty in
force, and imposing a duty of cents
u gallon ON molasses.
Mr.. Lodge offered as d substitute the
amendment originally reported by the
senate committee on finance fixing q
specific duty on sugar beginning with
cent per pound ON sugar testing so
degrees by the polariscopic test and
graduating the 6uty according to fine
ness, I.ost--'es to %.
Mr. PETER offered an amendment TO
place all sugar on the free list,
Mr. Hin voted in favor of free sugar,
and announced that he was authorized
10 say that Mr.. Irby, who was absent,
would have voted for free sugar had he
been present. The amendment was
lost by 20 10 81.
MIR, Allison offered an amendment TO
make the schedule go into effect imme-
diately on the passage of the bill. IT
was lost, 80 to 80.
Mr. Pettigrew (rep), of South Dakota,
offered AN amendment TO strike out the