The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-06-13

with by this tariff bill. Why should
senators on this side of the chamber
strike at us? Why should a sword be
run through the body of an infant to
reach the body of a giant? 1t is not
brave nor manly, nor courageous
He next went back and reviewed the
history OF sugar production and said
1t showed that with protection and leg
islation, we would produce all our own
sugar and would export sugar II
would require $50 factories to make
this sugar. Those factories would cost
Every section of the country would be
benefited. Considering the vast in
terests Louisiana has in rice and
sugar, continued Mr.. McEnery, mot
considering the output of her saw
mills. her salt and sulphur mines. is
there any reason why the Democratic
party of my state should not be COM
mitted to protection? Nothing pro-
lection but such protection as is con-
slstent with revenue necessities
Mr.. McEnery at some length re-
called his political career to show that
as far back as 1884 he occupied the
same position on this question Occu-
pied by him now. Call it what YOU
will" said Mr.. McEnery, protection,
revenue duty with incidental protec-
ton, or anything else, large amounts
must be raised and there is no reason
why the industries of the South should
not be protected"
Mr.. McEnery charged inconsistency
to those Democrats who sought protec-
ton for their local interests, but who
opposed protection as a system for the
whole country. He should ALWAYS
vote, he said, for measures of benefit
to the interests Of his state so long
as those interests did not conflict with
the interests Of other localities. This
enactment Of this measurer, he said,
in conclusion, might restore confidence.
ana pave the way for the complies
regeneration of the country through
the free coinage of silver Mr.. Nc
Emery spoke for nearly two hours
The vote upon Mr.. Jones amendment
was then taken. 1t was rejected, yeas
20, nays 80.
Mr.. Lindsay (Ky.) then took the floor
in support of his amendment to strike
out the differential on refined sugar
and place all sugars on an equality
IF we mean business" interposed
Mr.. Allen CNeb.). and we desire to
destroy this sugar trust, why don't
we go into court and by quo warranto
or other corporation process. dissolve
the trust?"
II hope" replied Mr. Lindsay, be
fore this bill is passed to see an amend
nlent engrafted upon it which will
enable the courts to protect the people
from the avarice OF this CORPORATION.
to do their duty it is not for the legis-
lative department to give an additional
subsidy to the trust
mo steps were taken during the four
years of the last administration" again
interposed Mr.. Allen.
Here Mr.. Vest broke into the debate
to insist that proceedings had been in
stituted in the federal courts, but the
supreme court had decided in favor OF
the trust because the government could
not prove that the product had gone
into interstate commerce.
Mr.. Lindsay said he did not con-
tend for discrimination against sugar
refining, but he did not believe in TAX
ing 1t up as q favored and fostered In
dustry IN the face CT Its history for
the past twenty years. He said In
reply to question that the intention
OF his amendment was to put refined
sugars on precisely the same basis as
raw sugars. The effect OF the amend
ment would be to protect the sugar
rcfner just as the sugar producer Is
protected.
Mr.. Morgan gave notice Of an amend
ment he should offer, designed to pre-
vent future sales of stocks or bonds
Then at so o'clock, without voting
on the Lindsay amendment the senate
adjourned.