The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-06-08
The Granny Senator After Bag
con and Catfery.
SPLIT ON LUMBER
PARTIES DIVIDE ON WHITE PINE
DUTY.
CAFFERY AND BACON JOIN
Bacon Swears He Wants Lumber
Duty For Revenue, and Caffery
Swears He IS Undemocratic
and hoar Vexes Them

and hoar vexes Them
Washington, June THE Senate to-
day disposed of the lumber paragraph,
which has been more stubbornly contested
than any feature of the bill thus far, by
defeating the motion of Senator Vest to
place white pine on the free list-yeas ~,
nays, 49, The contest was mainly slgnl-
ficant in breaking party lines, which have
been maintained with few exceptions dur
ing the early stages of the debate. On the
final vote eight Democratic Senators
voted against Mr.. Vests proposition,
namely, Messrs. Bacon and Clay, of Geor-
gia; McEnery, of Louisiana; McLaurm
and Tillman, of South Carolina;
White, of California; Martin, OF
Virginia, and Rawlins, of Utah. On
the other hand Mr.. Carter, Republican,
and Messrs. Cannon and Mantle, silver Re-
publicans, voted for the Vest motion. Fol
lowing the Senate vote to substitute the
Wilson lumber schedule was defeated-21
to 37-and the schedule was agreed to as
reported.
The debate preceding the vote was at
times very breezy, owing to the break of
political lines.
The consideration of the tariff bill was
resumed soon after the session opened and
the discussion proceeded on the para graph
placing duty of 50 per 1000 feet on lum-
Der. Mr.. Allen Pop, Nebraska) moved
TO substitute the provisions of the Wilson
bill which placed lumber ON the free list.
The Senator spoke in particular against
restoring white pine to the dutiable list,
<bo@ fhc 6ociopnd n no
prohibitory against Canadian pine.
There was nothing, he said, in the "clap
trap argument of American high wages,
as the wages of lumbermen in Canada
were on the whole higher than in the Uni
ted States.
Mr.. Berry (Arkansas) spoke against re-
storing the duty on white pine. he had
been appealed to by the lumber interests
Of his own State to support the duty, but
he could not do it when it laid such heavy
tribute on the agricultural people OF the
Western States.
Mr. Bacon (Georgia), who is supporting
the lumber duty, reminded Mr.. Berry that
his Bacon's) support was due to the fact
that the duty was revenue rather than
protective rate.
Mr.. Berry responded with a vehement
arrangement of the bill, framed, he said,
in the interest of every trust and combina-
ton in the country.
Mr. Caffery (Louisiana) opposed the
duty On white pine and incidentally criti-
cised the position of Mr.. Bacon tGeorgia),
who he said, favored a protective duty.
This the Senator from Georgia denied.
Mr. Caffery announced his opposition to
all protective duties. He favored the i'm
position Of pure revenue duties.
The platform / stand on interposed
Nr. Bacon, % the orthodoxy of which the
Senator from Louisiana may not sub
scribe to (sir. Caffery supported the In
dianapoIis gold ticket warrants my posi-
ton. The Chicago platform said: We
favor tariff for revenue, with duties so
adjusted as to operate equally throughout
the country and not discriminate as to
class or section 1t is that plank in the
platform upon which | stand
Mr.. Caffery said there might be dis
crepancy between the Chicago and In
dianapolis platforms, but the essence of
Democracy was opposed to tariff on raw
materials, because such tariff neces-
sarily required compensatory duties on
manufactured articles.
MY position" said Mr.. Bacon, sis that
duties are to be levied on manufactured
articles for revenue purposes, they should
be levied also on raw materiaEthat no
favors should be shown"
Mr. Caffery sat down but Mr.. Hoar
Massachusetts, brought both him and
Nr. Bacon to their feet. Il suggest,
said he, 'that the Senators from Louis
lana and Georgia could save the time of
the Senate if they could agree upon terms.
The Senator from Georgia should apply
his protection principles to sugar and the
Senator from Louisiana his protective
principles to lumber"
IF the Senator will substitute revenue
principles for protective principles OBJ
served Mr.. Bacon, good naturedly, Il will
agree"
"a protective duty on sugar by any
other name would be as sweet, replied
Mr.. Hoar, ''and be protective duty
stil'
Mr.. Caffery displayed some temper as
he pronounced Mr.. Hoar's statement that
he favored a protective duty ON sugar
erroneous. There was not, he declared,
an iota of protection in his makeup.
Mr.. Bacon and Mr.. Caffery had sharp
exchange and seemed about to subside, but
Senator Hoar evidently did not desire
that.
Again he made some rather sarcastic
references to Mr.. Caffery's inconsistency,
describing him as a free trader who cried
always Sugar" sugar" sugar" and
who, when the Wilson bill was before the
Senate, was so doubtful of what that bill
would do for sugar that he voted "aye"
on the sugar schedule and mo" on the
final passage of the bill, and then changed
to "yea."
'sThe free trade Senator from Louis
iana," he concluded, finds only one ex-
- -. oeL &. ].