The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1897-06-11

The Senate Completes the Lumber Sched-
ule-Tho Debate Very Breezy at Timer.
Senator Hoar Stirs Up Senators Gallery
and Bacon-The Sugar Schedule Laid
Aside on Suggestion of to
be Proposed.
SENATE.
Washington, June THE senate to-
day disposed of the lumber paragraph,
which has been more s%tubbornly con-
tested thai any feature of the bill
thus far, by defeating the motion Of
Senator Vest to place white pine on the
free ~list-yeas, 20; nays, So. The con-
test was mainly significant in breaking
party lines which have been maintain
ed, with few exceptions. during the
early stages of the debate. On the
final vote eight democratic senators
voted against Senator Vests PROPOSE
tion, namely, Senators Bacon and Clay,
of Georgia; McEnery, of louisiana;
McLaurin and Tillman, of South Car
DINA; Martin, Of Virginia, Rawlins, Of
Utah, and White, Of California. On
the other hand, Senator Garter,
republican,, and Senators Cannon
and Mantle, silver republicans,
voted for the Vest motion. Following
this a vote to substitute the Wilson
lumber schedule was defeated-21 to 81,
and the schedule was agreed to as re-
ported.
The debat 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 paragraph placing a duty OF ~ per
1000 feet on lumber.
Senator Allen, populist, 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. urging that the
rates were designed to be prohlbltory
against Canadian pine. There was
nothing, he said, in the "clap-trap ar
gument' of American high wages, as
the wages Of lumber men in Canada
were, on the whole, higher tina in the
United States.
Senate Berry, of Arkansas, spoke
against restoring 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.
supporting the lumber duty, reminded
Senator Berry that his (BacOn's) sup
port was due to the fact that the duty
was a revenue rather thar a protective
rate.
Senator Berry responded with a We
hement ~arraignment of the bill, framed,
he said, in the interest of every trust
- -, tho on11ntyU
Senator Caffery, of Louisiana, OPP
posed the duty on white pine and in
cidentally criticised the position OF
Senator Bacon, who, he said, favored a
protective duty. This the senator from
Georgia denied.
Senator Caffery his oppo-
sition to all protective duties. He taV-
ored the imposition of pure revenue du-
ties.
1.-The platform I stand on i~nterposed
Senator Bacon, the orthodoxy OF
which the senator from Louisiana may
not subside to Senator CatterV sup
ported the Indianapolis gold tlckeO
warrants my position. Inc chicago
platform said: We favor a tariff for
revenue with duties so adjusted as to
operate equally throughout the oun
try and not discriminate as to class or
section 1t is that plank in the plat
form upon which | stand
Senator Caffery said there might be
a discrepancy between the Chicago n
the Indianapolis Platforms, but the es-
sence of democracy was opposed TO a
tariff on raw materials because Such a
tariff necessarily required compensa-
tory duties on manufactured articles.
Senator Caffrey sat down, but Sena-
tor Hoar brought both MIN and Senator
Bacon to their feet. Il suggest sad
he, that the senators from Louisiana
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 protect
i've principles to lumber
IF the senator will substitute reve-
nue. principles for protective princl-
PIES" observed Senate Bacon, good
naturally, Il will agree"
"A protective duty on sugar by any
other name would be as sweet replied
Senator Hoar. and be a protective
duty STILL"
Senator Caffery displayed some tenn
per as he pronounced Senator Hoar's
statement that he favored a protective
duty on sugar erroneous. There was
not, he declared, an iota of protection
in his make up.
Senator Bacon and senator Caffery
had a sharp exchange and seemed
" " SopSlN wv
IDENTIFY did not desire that.
Again he made some rather sarcas-
tic references to Senator Caffery's con-
sistency, describing him as a free
trader who cried always sugar "su-
gar sugar" and who, when the Will
son 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 no on the III passage
of the bill and then changed to yea"
1.-The free trade senator from LOuiSi-
ana" he concluded, finds only one ex-
ception to the application Of his theory
sugar and the free trade senator
from Georgia, another eXception-lum-
Der.
Senator Bacon protested against be-
ing termed a free tradet He favored
a duty on all raw mateN#ils.
4 "All raw materials th& compete with
the products of Georgia." remarked
(Senator Hoar amid laughter.