Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1897-03-31


ing majority.
The Chiffon amendment to submit to
arbitration all questions in dispute be-
tween the two nations which the SEN
ate might at the time deem fit subjects
f,r such arbitration, was laid on the
table by majority of seven votes.
HOUSE.
On motion by Mr.. Dalzell the para
graph in the tariff bill imposing spe-
cifc duty on phenacetine, anti-pyrine
and anti.toxi was struck out.
On motion by Mr.. Grosvenor the
duty on currants was increased from
l.! 10 2 cents pound.
Mr.. Grosvenor, after section or two
of the bill had been read by the clerk,
offered the new section authorized by
the committee on ways and means,
making the duties in the bill applicable
to all imports after April 1.
Mr.. Bailey made the point of order
that the amendment was not in order
at this time. He stated that the
amendment was on all tours with the
amendment offered offered by Mr..
Dockery to the first paragraph of the
bill. 1t was obnoxious also to the
well-establshed principle of law that
there shall be retroactive amendment.
Mr.. McMillin made the further point
that the amendment sought to regulate
the practice of courts aud therefore was
not germane to the bill.
Mr.. Dalzell called Mr.. Bailey's atten-
ton to the fact that the amendment
was offered as committee amendment
to which Mr.. Bailey responded that if
that were the case of course his point
was not well taken. But he insisted
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
should distinctly state that the amend
ment had been agreed upon by the
committee OH ways and means. Mr..
Daizell declined to do that, but stated
that the amendment in substance had
been agreed to by the committee aud
referred to q subcommittee to put in
shape:
Mr.. McMillin-Did that sub-commit
tee ever report to a meeting of the full
committee I?
Mr.. Dalzell admitted that there had
been no meeting of the committee since
but he protested to Mr.. Bailey that the
only result of his objection would be to
compel meeting of the committee
when the amendment would be ap-
! proved.
After further discussion of the point
of order Chairman Sherman said his
ruling must depend upon question of
fact, whether or not the committee on
ways and means authorized the sub
com mittee to offer the amendment in
behalf of the committee.
Mr.. Dingley said that in order to OBJ
viate all doubt on the question, the
amendment would be Withdrawn and
he gave notice of meeting of the
committee on ways and means in three
minutes.
Mr.. Barrows recurring to the amend
ment by which the duty on currants
was increased from II to 2 cents plead
ed for a recognition of Greece, which
was to-day, he said, giving to the world
q splendid exhibition of heroism and
courage. 1t was poor time, he said,
for the United States to join Great Bri-
tain and her European allies in block
aiding the ports of that country by in
creasing the tax on the article from
which the people derived large part
of their subsistence. He hoped that the
House would pass resolution ofsympa
thy with Greece as the Senate had done.
1t i'll became the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Grosvenor), who comes from
Athens, to join in the attack of bar
barism and rapacity upon that country.
While the members OF the committee
on ways and means were acting upon
the Grosvenor amendment an irrele.
want discussion on the homestead
strikes of 1892 and the general provi
sions OF the bill was engaged in by
Messrs Jetr, Ray and Sulzer.
Mr.. Grosvenor then, by direction OF
the committee on ways and means, re-
introduced the amendment making q
Jew section.
Mr.. Dockery moved an amendment
TO the section, authorizing the intro
duction free of duty of articles controll-
ed by trusts in the United States.
MI. Dingley made the point of order
that it was not germane relating to the
free list, while the Grosvenor amend
ment proposed to fix the day when the
duties fixed in the bill should take
effect.
The chair sustained the point of
order.
1t was agreed that the amendment
proposed by Grosvenor should be limit
ed to half an hours debate.
Mr.. Grosvenor said the attention of
the country should be directed to the
attitude OF the gentleman from Mis-
souri, Dockery) and his associates in
their frantic efforts to do something
about trusts. The Wilson bill, he said,
was retrospective in every line, for
while it was passed on August rs, 1894,
the duties were due and collectible
from the first Cay of August.
Mr.. Richardson answering said that
one of the authorities quoted by Mr.. |
Grosvenor was absolutely conclusive
against his contention. There the court
held that goods imported between Au-
gust /, 1894, the date on which the
Wilson law purported to make its du-
ties col!ectible, and August IS, 1894,
the day on which it became law, were
dutiable under the Mckinley law and
not the Wilson law. He asked Mr..
Grosvenor what he was going to do
with regard to those articles on which
the duty in the bill, when it finally be.
came the law, was less than the rate at
presend fixed. Was he going to refund
the excess to the importer? The amend
ment did not so impart, for no provi
sion to that effect was made in it and