The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-07-01

controlled almost exclusively the price OF
| hides used by American manufacturer
| of leather goods. Hides. he said, hat
| been on the free list since 1877. and dur
| ing that time the American producers nae
been able not only to meet all foreign
/ competition, but to build up "A valuabl
! exp0rt trade in the leather manufacture
| This market. he said, would be threaten
| ed by the imposition of the proposed duty
Mr.. Vest of Missouri reviewed the leg
| isIntion on leather and hides and present
| ed a letter written by James G. BLAINE
| TO Mr.. Mckinley when the Mckinley bill
was being framed, protesting against Il
| duty on hides as a slap in the face IRON
| the South Americans and as likely tt
| legislate the republican party out OF pow
| or. The senator argued that duty on
| hides could not advance the price of cat
| tlc in the west, as hides were only by
product of the cattle, and moreover the
price UP or down by the big four combina-
tion at Chicago. The senator recalled the
circumstances of the senatorial inquiry
into the beef trust in which he particl'
pated
When Mr.. Vest spoke of oppressive, ac-
ton by Mr. Armour to compel butchers
to use dressed beef, Mr.. Allen OF Ne
braska remarked that the evidence seem
ed sufficient for an Indictment and why
prosecutiOnI
This developed n warm controversy be-
tween Mr.. Hoar and Mr.. Allen as to the
right of federal prosecution for an Of
Tense wholly within state lines, which at
times became rather personal.
Mr.. Allen said that while not an advo-
cate of general protective system. yet
he cOncurrcd with the view that If there
was to be such II bill. every section
should share in the benefits it gave. He
spoke of the benefits of Il hide duty to
the farmers. and in particular of the eX-
tent of the industry in Nebraska.
The discussion branched off to the
prosecution of trusts, in which MesSIs.
Allen and IOar discussed the law. Mr..
IlOar stated that he thought it likely an
amendment relating TO trusts would be
offered in connection with the present bill
tending TO perfect the provisions on that
subject in the tariff bill of 1894. and de-
claring that such provisions are not re-
pcacd by this bill. Such m amendment
had been prepared by Mr.. Pcttus of Ala
bama. and Mr.. IlOar said he expected to
vote for it when it came up.
Mr. Honr said that while the question
of trusts could be dealt with to some eX-
tent by striking at their imports as in
the law of 1894. yet he favored the most
serious phases of the evil must he dealt
! with by the states. He showed the tech
meal legal meaning Of the word trust.
and showed the difficulties in making the
sugar trust and Standard Oil trust amen
able to federal law. He regarded these
| mOnOpOlies as II menace to the republic
and was hopeful that some means might
| be found to check them, yet he could not
say how they could he hit. The state
| could limit their amount of capital, which
| woIilI Inc ono Objective means OG don ling
with them.
Mr.. Lindsay of Kentucky said that in
| the ease of Il confessed monopoly, such
! rs the sugar trust. one effective means Of
| dealing with ii would be to extend it no
| further benefits from tariff legislation
| When the point was reached in Il tariff
| bill where sugar was to be dealt with
then it should he so shaped us not to be
| to the benefit of the trust.
| Mr.. Iloar'S answer to this was that the
| policy seemed to he established that rev
cnuc was to bc raised on refined sugar.
| aud il was further desired that the bust
ness of refining sugar shall he done in this
| country rather than abroad.
| a great foreign government was about
| the biggest trust that could menace the
trade of the United States. Mr.. Hoar as
serted. He hoped that some effective
remedy would be found instead of going
on the theory that because II jackal Of
| fox prcys on our commerce it should bt
| given over to II foreign wolf or lion.
| Mr.. Caffcry of Louisiana argued that
the sugar trust was within the operation
of the antitrust law, and he felt that il
was time the attention of the attorney
| general and the United States district at.
| torneys were called to the frequent and
fragrant violations of the law by the SUI
| gar trust. The senator declared that tn,
sugar trust was the most arrogant and
iniqutous trust in the world.
| Mr.. Allen, resuming, declared that the
country was ''rOtten with trusts" every
article we eat and wear and use being
controlled by trusts, while congress. the
| judiciary and the executive authority Is
| impotent and powerlcss to act according
to those who argued that the fedora
laws are sufficient if energetically en-
| forced but that the authorities have not
executed them with zeal
| The vote was then taken on the hid,
paragraph as amended by the committee
and it was agreed to, 80 to 30.
| The committee offered substitute fol-
| paragraph 42I, bands of betting, leather
etc. the text of which is given in the re-
port elsewhere of the action of the com
mittee.
II was agreed to. 30 to 20.
The glove paragraphs were taken NJ
| and agreed to without change
| The substitute previously agreed to by
the committee for paragraph 344, was of
fcred by Mr.. Allison and agreed to; alsC
| paragraph 49,. This completed the leath
or and glove paragraphs.
Mr.. Allison proposed substitute fol-
paragraph 2lj. relating to cattle, as fol
I lows:
Less than a year old, 50 a head: on al
A.. a. II. h..
! Sl4. $3.50 a head; valued ut more thar
! S14 and not more than $50, % per cent
nd valorcm: valued at more than $50
30 per cent.
The substitute was agreed TO.
The bill was laid aside ut ) o'clock ant
after an executive session the senate ad
! journed.
House Proceedings.
Washington. June 2S-The session oil
, the house today lasted only long enough
Al, not al