Morning journal and courier., 1894-06-05
SUGAR IN THE SENATE.

The Amendment Discussed by Sew. eral Senators-Mr. PIatt Styles it . RobbinS Scheme.
 WASHINGTON, June 4.-After the joint resolution sppropriating $10,000 for ex. psnses of the senate investigation was passed the tariff bill was taken up and the amendments to paragraph 1S2, offered by the finance committee, changing the time when the repeal of the sugar bounty is to take effect from July l, 1896, to January l, 1895, were agreed to. Subsequently by unanimous consent that action was recon sidered and the amendments still remain open.
 Mir. Allison. rep, of Iowa, argued against the repeal of the sugar bounty and against placing sugar on the dutiable list.
 The sugar section, he said, was the most important section of the bill. It carried with 1t little more than one third of all the duties to bs raised under the bill. He declared that the sugar schedule ss now proposed was in its essence a cspitation tax, and that it taxed every man, woman and child dollar year, while it allowed
 
 into the United States free of duty up to January l, 1895. MT. Allison discussed what he called the complicated and tech- nical sugar schedule, and said that it should be explained by those who were responsible for 1t.
 Mir. Allison declared that the sugar schedule went beyond the limit of proteo. tion and was a schedule practically of pro- hibition against the importation of refined sugar. That was unfair to all the other industries. He could not understand why the Louisiana senators should consent to the repeal of the sugar bounty. Under the proposed schedule, Mir. Allison said, beyond all question the price of sugar would be in- creased II cents pound.
 MT. Jones replied to MT. Allison. On s number of technical points a rapid, con- fusing and generally unintelligible contro- versy was kept up for long time between the senator from Arkansas and MT. Aldrich MT. Teller said that coffee and tea, which were not produced in this country, were the ideal articles for revenue reform.
 MT. Csfrey, dem, of Louisisns, advocat. ed the sugar schedule. He avowed his acknowledgement to the senators of his party for the duty on sugar.
 Mir. Morgan, dem., of Alabama, gave mo- tice of an amendment making it a criminal
 
 bination or conspiracy to import any ar ticles so as to increase its market value in any part of the United States.
 MT. Chandler, rep, of New Hampshire, made an argument in favor of @ oontinu- ancs of the sugar bounty and against the imposition of duty on sugar.
 At the conclusion of MT. Chandler's speech the question was the amendment changing the date of the repeal of the sugar bounty from July l. 1894. to June l. 1S95. Ar. Aldrich argued that the effect of the postponement of the repeal and of the postponemsnt till the same period of time when the sugar duty is to go into effect would be to give to the sugar trust six months within which to buy up all the sugar of the world and enable 1t to charge a cent and half per pound additional on all the sugar consumed. The sugar schedule, if it was to go into effect at all, should go into effect on the passage of the bill.
 MT. PIatt spoke of the amendment as a scheme of public plunder for the benefit of the greatest and most avaricious combi. nation or trust in the United States. It would be interesting to know what 1t was which had forced this trust amendment on the democratic party. He warned demo- cratic senators that there would be 8 reckoning of the people with them.
 After some discussion of the matter 1t was agreed that the vote on the pending amendment and on MT. Manderson's pro posed amendment to continue the sugar bounty to 1905 should be taken by 1 o'clock tomorrow; that on any other the debate should be under the minute rule, and that the sugar schedule should be disposed of before ad- journment tomorrow.