Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-02-07
Mr.. Mitchells Explanation Of the
Sugar Bounty Claims.
SENT TO APPROPRIATIONS COMMITqEE
The Closing Debate on the I'D,
ministration's Currency Bill.
AMEN MEN rs OFFERED

The credentials of Lucian Baker as Sena-
tor from Kansas for the term beginning
March next were presented to the Senate
today.
A sequel to the spirited incident of the
other day between Mr.. Mitchell of Oregon
and Mr.. Harris of Tennessee occurred
when the former presented an explanation
of certain sugar bounty claims.
Mr.. Harris, looking rather serious, spoke
Of his objections the other day. but said
he would not renew it.
Mr.. Mitchell said he was glad to hear
the Senator admit that he had made a
mistake. 1t looked for a moment as
though the sparks might fly again, but Mr..
Harris rose to reply and then sat down
again. evidently ready to let the personal
incident close.
The Sugar Bounty Claims.
Mr.. Mitchell said the sugar bounty claims
had brought out a difference of opinion in
the claims committee. There We're two
propositions submitted. One was to pay in
full the balance of the bounty earned up to
the passage of the new tariff act, which
repealed the bounty. The other was to pay
one-half Of the bounty for the year 1895,
since the passage of the act The majority
of the committee believe in paying the
They made a pro forma recommendation
to that effect, not to the Senate, but to the
appropriation committee. Mr.. Mitchell
said his personal view was that these
claims wele legal obligation, as well as
an equitable one. The aggregate of the
claims for the bounty earned prior to the
passage of the tariff act was $231. 600. The
commissioner OF internal revenue suggested
main claims were for one-haf the bounty
after the tariff act was passed The total
bounty would be about $l5, 100000. and the
claims for one-half would be 81, 600. The
total of claims before and after the tariff
act would thus aggregate about $S,COO,OOO.
Mr.. Blanchard Q-a-) said these estimates
were mere conjectures. The sugar pro-
ducers questioned their correctness.
Mr.. Cockrclps Protest.
Mr.. Cockrell (Mo), chairman Of the ap-
preparation committee, protested against
having these bounty claims dumped on
the appropriation committee. Here was
a question involving millions, he said.
And yet the claims committee were afraid
to assume responsibility and report the
claims to the Senate. Instead of that they
/ tried to unload the responsibility for this
big bounty question on the appropriation
&C mmittee.
Mr. Mitchell and Mr.. Pasco declared
there was no disposition to shirk respon-
sibility or to dump" the question on the
appre epriation committee without action.
The claims were finally referred to the
appropriation committee.
The Senate then passed the bill regulat-
ing the navigation and commerce of in
land waters of the United States, not in
Guiding the great lakes and connecting
waters.
A Lottery Resolution.
Mr.. Call (Fla.) called up resolution for
Senate Investigating committee of al
legged irregularities by the Louisiana and
Honduras Lottery Company in influencing
elections and political conventions in Flor
IDA.
The Call resolution was summarily cut off
by Mr.. Blackturn's motion to take up the
diplomatic and consular appropriation bill,
which prevailed. The debate on the propo-
sition for a cable to Hawaii was then re-
sumad.
Minister Thurston of Hawaii, accom-
panied by Mrs. Thurston, were interested
The Hawaiian Question Again.
Mr. Teller Col.) called attention to the
latest dispatches from Hawaii showing that
the British authorities there asserted their
purpose of protecting British citizens un-
der any and all circumstances. The Sena-
tor compared this with Secretary Her
bert's orders that American citizens in
Hawaii would receive no naval protection
If they assisted in maintining the existing
Hawaiian government
Mr.. Gray Oel) stated, as legal propo-
sition, that in the recent uprisings in Ha-
wall the American citizens who participat-
ed on one side or the other could not be
called to account by this government. But
they forfeited the right of protection for
the results consequent upon their action.
Mr.. Frye suggested that the press reports
today showed that Mr.. Gray's legal propo-
strion was not the one adopted by Great
Britain.