Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-06-12
ssh CONGRESS.
Continued from page ~

in that bill, which, White said, was not
half as advantageous to the trust as
the proposed schedule. He quoted
Plat of Connecticut, Chandler Of New
Hampshire and Alison of Iowa.
The latter had said in the remarks
quoted that II he (Allison) could have
his way he would strike from the bill
avery vestige Of protection for the trust.
When he quoted from Gear Of Iowa, he
and the Iowa senator were drawn into
a sharp exchange about the way pros
perity Jagged behind its predictions.
Gear declared that prosperity woul1
.ome when the tariff bill was passe 1.
)ne of Aldrich's expressions, as to the
fleet of the sugar duty on the poor
mans breakfast table. was read by
White, in mocking tones. The attitude
II Lodge of Massachusetts,. Morrill, of
Vermont, Plat Of Connecticut. and
,ther senators on the Republican side.
severely criticising the sugar rates Of
he Wilson bill. were reviewed -
White. with sarcastic side remarks on
consistency. There was much amuse-
nent over one quotation from Aldricn.
.rraigning Democratic senators for ve-
ng controlled by an Iron bound
'aucus rule
White remarked that the present
'aucus rule on the Republican side
'howed that the Democratic senators
lad very distinguished imitators
When these past Republican express
ions were compared with Republican
lotions, today. said White, there was
title establishment that the era of con-
.dence had not yet set in. 1t was a
TRANCE spectacle to see senators Leg
slate in the interest OF trust which
had in the past denounced. 1t would
eem that .euts were being paid 10
hese creatures of inordinate pow q.
nd ii at least strengthened intima
ions which had been made.
German, sd, then spoke against the
chedule and the entire bill pointing
ut that it's effect was to burden -
'eople without opening up to gt.,g
United States new foreign markets.
Stewart. New. asked Allison to state
.efore the vote was taken whether
his bill gave the refiners greater adj
'antage than the present law.
II have no doubt" answered Allison,
that excluding, the countervailing
luty this bill does not give greater
advantage to the sugar industry than
he Wilson BILL
Allison proceeded to make a general
He said that thus far sena-
ors had been discussing decimal fig
Tres and statistics. without considering
what lies at the basis of this and all
=,
he bounty of $780," said he land we
lear senators on the other side say
hey will support sugar duty on the
.heory that it is a tax for revenue only.
wish to disclaim any responsibility
or this duty, as a revenue duty. III
hat were it's only objects it should not
nave my vote. l don't believe that il
We were establishing a revenue system
IN imports alone that sugar should
,ear such proportion of the burden as
S imposed on this BILL
Allison proceeded to point out the
hanged conditions since 1876 when SUI
.ar earned duty of 80 per cent In
hose days in the days of his boyhoOd,
cry little pure white sugar was seen.
Tow, no sugar came on the table of
ich or poor that had not gone through
ONE process of refining. The refining
of this country was entitled to
ONE protection. He then explained
he House and Senate schedules. The
louise proposed schedule beginning
With l cent on sugars testing IS de-
.rees and increasing 3-100 of a cent
or each degree above that. 1t might
e difficult for layman to follow the
ntricacies of a schedule, but to the ex>
ert it was easy. The increase for each
egree was due to the increased value |
f the sugar. He himself had believed
portion of the duty should be ad
alorem, but the House schedule was
pecific and those who believed in pro-
ection generally favored specific duties.
he Senate schedule increased the duty |
N refined from 1877 in the House bill to
.95
do you believe in protection to labor |
r to capital?' inquired Tillman.
'That is a generality" replied Alli-
on "to which the senator well knows |
ny answer. I believe in protection to |
american labor, but / believe in pay
ne American capital from foreign |
apital.
Havemeyer in his testimony, said |
'illman said that only $4,000 men were !
ngaged in the sugar refinery industry.
'et you propose to give the refiners a |
ifferential which amounts to between |
10, OOO, 900 and $2O.OOO.OO0 for the pro-
ection of $4,000 men,"
1t was the policy of this bill, replied
Illison, to do what Europe had done.
stablish the production of sugar in |
his country and keep the $100,OOO,OOO |
paid for sugars by our peo-
lie at home. Were 1t not for that he !
yould advocate revenue duty of 40
r As per cent. Recalling the criticism
f the Republicans for their abandon !,
nent of the bounty system, Allison :
aid, that system had been adopted to
the sugar industry. 1t had
allied first, perhaps. because of the
apid and unexpected strides made in !
he beet and cane growths and second.
ecause the Democratic party decided
0 do nothing to encourage the system.
This was agricultural industry. The
chedule would succeed and fail as 1t
or failed to establish the beet
ugar industry in this country. The