The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-07-25

country. For what reason should we still
further insist a tax solely for the bene-
1T Of the sugar trustg
Does not the \ OF a cent differential
placed on refined sugar" asked Mr.. CAT
ferry OF Louisiana "lnure TO the benht OF
"The senator from Louisiana Is better
able TO answer that question than l." re-
piled Mr.. Villas.
appreciation OF the peop.e because II has
been placed in the bll as peculiar ad-
vantage 70 the trust As such ! deal With
charge OF subseryiency to colossal and
Croesus-lke comO.na0 on.
The sugar trust corporation he said had
been able In a single year 90 divide nearly
one-thlrd Of the aggregate OF US gigantic
and inflated stock of f5.en0o. DID such
ago as 1850 the president OF the sugar
trust had said that sugar could be re-
nned here az "a cheaper AMOR cost man in
England. France or German For one ne
could not support this measure without
seeking 90 relieve the conference or ihls
tax 80 obnoxious and oppressive 10 the
people. so criminal in its purpose and so
offensive 20 the true principles % democ-
racy. The tariff reform measure I'm which
b a't conciaaed should o NOT not be marrcd VIII
the badge OF gervtudo 10 tho sugar trust
Mr. CnGcry Replies.
Mr. Caffery. IN reply 20 Mr.. Villas. taid
he was IN the senate 20 guard the interests
Of his state Sugar was ita most stable
product lie was not interested In the su-
gar trust. nor was his peoplo. Tut tho
producers OF Louisiana were a,fo manu-
facturcre OF centrifugal sugars WIN when
those or the trust competed. and they were
entitled 20 the x Of a cent dircrentlal
lie Grcared that IN the matter Of tofln
reform. he was IN strict accord With The
orthodox tencta Of his party. lie reviewed
the historic attitude OF the party toward q
sugar duty A fair revenue duty, on sugar
and was All the sugar producers OF Loulsi.
ana asked. lie was u democrat lie loved
his party. but n the time came when he
party. he w0ulG stand by HE state. II the
one-oghth dinerential on refined sugar was
stricken out, he declared IN conclusion he
Mr. sherman. replying briefly 20 Mr.. Caf-
fery declared that in his opinion q nat nd
yRlOrem duty OF 90 per cent was sufficient
20 protect the sugar producers or Louisiana.
The sugar producers Ia his opinion had no
higher duty than any other agricultural
product Why should the additional eighth
of a cent be imposedH
Mir Palmer proclaimed that ne was In
favor OF free raw materials and announced
that he would oppose the isc dlfferentlal TO
the sugar trust. tie thought the sugar pro-
when they Joined hands With the sugar
trust The partnership should he dissolved
Docs an Identity or interests constitute
partnership" asked Mr., Caffery.
"Certlnly," replied Mr.. Palmer An iden-
tity Of Interests and a division OF profits
DO constitute a partnership" Protection.
Mr. Palmer continued, was sham and a
|
"Did you believe when you moved 10 take
| harhed wire from the free list and place n
| duty on u that protection was "a fraud?'
u IA" replied Mr.. Palmer amid laugh
| ter III the materials out Of which barbed
wire MAS made had neSh , on Ihe ttee hst
| place the wire on The free list.
Mr. Palmer said he was In favor OF pass
eai IN" be OBJ obned S He was IN fagor or
! sending II t0 the president Let the pres-
a.ni do his duty, said he, as he under,
than the Mckinley law let him sign It. II
| not let him veto 10. voted for this bill
! because practically this was all we could
accomplish. / was a senator from Illinois
/ before Mr.. Cleveland was elected president.
! A word to the wise is sufficient" Uaugh-
blanchard Speaks.
Mr. Blanchard followed Mr.. Palmer and
| charged bad faith on the part Of some Of
! the democratic senator's. lie pointed out
| that On the caucus the concessions placed
In the senate bin had been assente1 20 by
] forty-tw1 democratic senators. The sc diff
! ferentlal on refined sugars was one Of those
| concessions; the 80 per cent on raw and
! refined sugar was another and the pay
] ment or bounty Tor the remainder Jt the
/ present year was another This last agree
| ment was violated. Mr.. Villas. who made
| the motion TO strike out the ikc, was IN eau
| Gus. Mr.. Blanchard said and had made no
| objection O. q. Somebody" said Mr.. Ban-
chari' lis MT living uP. to MS agreement
| The Louisiana senator's. although the
| caucus Arrangement had been violated, In
! the failure 10 provide for the continuation
OF the bounty for the remainder of the
| year. had voted for the bin with the eX-
| pectation that that provision would be
| inserted In conference. Mr. Blanchard
/ called attention 10 the fact that Mr.. Hin,
! who was now IN antagonism 10 his posi-
| ton on sugar, was IN democratic caucus
/ and did not raise his voice against the
| sugar schedule.
THE senator very well knows" inter
| rupted Mr. Hill that ! dssented wholly
| from the conclusions OF that caucus and
| refused to be bound by It, did not men
| ton sugar one way or another
| Mr.. Blanchard proceeded 10 say that Il
/ time for pain speaking. over 800
| 100000 in his state were involved and with
| out indulging in threats, he desired TO say
| that the Louisiana representatives eX-
| pected that the caucus agreement would be
| carried out TO the letter.
| When Mr. Blanchard concluded Mr..
| Cockrell moved that when the senate adj
| journed today 70 be to meet on Monday
| next. Mr.. Hill attempted TO resist the mo-
| ton, but 10 was not deba table. The motion
| was carrled-30 to 23-Messrs. Hill and Irby
| voting with the republicans against the
| motion. Then at $40 the senate went into
| executive session. and at 3 80 adjourned I'M
! I'll Monday at II O'Clock.