The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-04-01
debate ON D|NGLEY BILL.
THE BILL OPEN FOR AMENDMENT
UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE
RULE.
An AMENDMENT AGAINST TRUSTS.
Was Knocked Out by the Republic
cans on a Strict Party Vote.
The Senate Discussed the
Civil Service Rules.

la t
"A Washington, March 26.-The tariff bill
Twas thrown open for amendment under
the fve-minute rule today, but several
tweary hours of work only served to dis
pose of nine of the 1852 pages of the BILL
All the amendments offered by the demo-
Gratis were rejected. Three slight COM
mittee amendments were adopted, and
@also an amendment offered by Mr.. Ma
haney (rep.) of New York to increase the
lduty on white lead from IL to 3 cents
nber pound, the rate in the act of 1890, the
Fpresent duty being 1 cent. The discus
ksion covered wide range of political top
lies, and at times was both interesting and
sexciting. BY far the most important fea-
Ature of the day was the attempt of Mr..
NDockery (dem.) of Missouri. Mr.. Cooper
Ndem.) of Texas and others, backed by
1.-THE entire opposition, to secure a vote on
Ian amendment Offering in mutitudinous
aform, which provided that in case any
Particle made dutable by the bill was
4controlled by trust or combination. the
Mr.. Dingley made the point of order that
THE amendment was not german to the
Nutiable list and would not be in order
8unti the free list was reached. For al
most three hours this point of order was
thought over, and was the subject for
Examinations and determinations. The
democrats insisted that if the amend
Hment was ruled out it would never be
voted on, as the free list, in all human
probability, would not be reached before
the final vote was taken. The chair sus-
atained the point of order. An appeal was
Htaken, but the chair was sustained by a
sstrict party vote, 15S to 104.
House Proceedings.
Washington, March 26.-The real con-
dition of the tariff bill began this morn
Z ing at 10 o'clock when the bill was thrown
open for amendment under the five-minute
rule. The leaders on both sides were in
n their places, but there were hardly more
THAN seventy members on the floor.
Mr.. Lanham (demJ of Texas, after the
Nenacting clause was read, moved to
strike it out.
N Mr.. Sherman (rep.) of New York, who
Twas in the chair, ruled that the motion
Twas out of order.
MIR. Dockery (dem.) of Missouri offer
ed the first amendment. 1t was to the
&enacting clause and was in the nature OF
IA prOviso that whenever 1t was shown
to the satisfaction of the president that
4there was II trust or combination to con-
troll the price of any article on the dutia-
4, ;,t bn lut snph article should
be suspended.
NJ Mr.. Dingley made the point of order
Nthat the amendment was in effect to add
Ito the free list, and as the house was now
I.tconsidering the dutiabe list, it was out
s,lof order.
Il have great respect for the parliament
Xtary knowledge of the gentleman from
3NIaine," said Mr.. Dockery, but as 1t Is
Lprobable that the free list will never be
reached, l hope it will be held III order
how" UaughterD
l8 Mr.. Cooper (dem.) of Texas offered a
\ Substitute for the DOckery amendment IN
Substance to accomplish the same pur-
pose. but containing definition of trust
land providing for the determination OF its
existence by Il court.
II 'If you are so anxious to incorporate
Ssuch provision as this in the Dlll why
did Won not insert it in the present law!"
sasked Mr.. Tawney rep of Minnesota.
"Trusts had not gone quite so far then,
ereplied Mr.. Richardson (dem.) of Tennes-
ssee, amid laughter. He called on those
ION the other side who were opposed TO
TRUSTS to aid in the adoption of the amend
ament. -,
u II never have" said he, heard such
'insincere objections to such just amend
'ment.'
IA A long debate followed. Mr.. Bailey
made an extended argument in appealing
the majority to aid in putting down
ordinations which '''preyed upon the en-
&fgies of the people"
4 Mr.. Hepburn (rep) of Iowa raised
laugh on the democratic side by saying
that this amendment, if adopted, would
defeat the purpose of the bill. -.
"Don't laugh" he shouted, waving his
hand. He went on to explain how easy
B il would be for a few men who desired
free wool and free sugar to effect COM
bination to raise the prices of sugar and
aswool, and under the amendment force
these articles to the free list.
an Mr.. Bailey thanked Mr. Hepburn for his
frank admission that the destruction of
trusts would interfere with the purposes
Eof the BILL. q.
kfrying to show that under the pretense
Kof creating trust this legislation could
fbe destroyed
a But could not the courts decide be-
tween a sham trust and a real trust?'
fasked Mr. Terry (dem.) of Arkansas.
n 81 suppose the courts could replied
ENIr. Hepburn. ''But shall the revenues
kpf the country be destroyed because of
<the existence in violation of law of real
trust? Trusts are illegal. Their. creators
'bre criminals. Shall we place the. treas.
'ilry revenues at the mercy of criminals?'
II Mr.. Simpson pop) of Kansas said he
Thought the majority was very much more
.foncerned about the falling off of the rev
tenues of trusts than the falling off of
The revenues of the treasury. Demo
fratic applause)
Mr.. Grosvenor (rep) of Ohio declared
that there was never time when trusts
had the government by the throat as they
had in the last four years, and now, when
The democrats were in the minority they
came here and raised a great song about
trusts. He said the ways and means COM
imittee had already been assailed because
they refused to the demand of the sugar
trust for an ad valorem duty on sugar.