The National tribune., 1897-06-17
SUCHR SCHEDULE DEBATED.
Arguments For and Against It in The
Tariff Bill Consideration.

Tariff Bill Consideration.
The 10 ost important matter in connection with
the Tariff in Congress last week was the debate
on the sugar schedule and the adoption OF al
amendment offered as result Of Republican
caucus on JuneS.
Before the consideration OF the sugar sched-
ulc, on Thursday. the Cannon amendment TO
pay export bounties on agricultural pFoducts
was rejected Mr. Tillman Is. C., d., spoke
in import of the amendment. He appealed TO
his Democratic colleagues to vote for the Can
non amendment, on the ground that IL IT was
robbery to take millions out OF the pockets OF
the people for the benefit of the manufacturers,
they conld not face their constituents after
voting against restoring to them very small
proportion OF the amount they have been rob-
be-; OF.
When the amendment came to vote there
were only 10 Senators in favor Of IL TO SO
against il. Two Of the 10 Roach and Tillman)
were Democrats, FIVE (Alien. Bntler, Harris Of
Kansas. Heitfeid. and Stewart) were Populists.
and three Cannon, Mantle. and Pettigrew)
were Silver Republicans
The sugar schedule was taken up. The Com.
mittee amendment heretofore proposed was
withdrawn, leaving the House proposition in
the bill with the change of the duty on sugar
above No. IS Dutch standard in color, and all
sugar which has gone through a process OF re-
uHIDP from 1910 cents a pOunu 10 IJ0 CsHtS-
The House paragraph is also modified by omit
ting that portion of it applying to sirups,
juice, melada ETC., and tho provision as to the
Hawaiian treaty.
Mr. Jones (Ark) said that the figures would
show that the profits 20 the sugar rshners un-
der the present provision were away beyond
the profits that would have gone to them I'M
der the Dingley bill, and were long way
above what was professed by the committees
| n honseS IA nei fha M
intended to give. Under existing law the re-
hners had ditferentlal OF one-eighth OF a cent
a pound. They were prospecting under It.
What reason was there for increasing that mar
gin? What excuse was there, for it would SIM
ply increase the profits Of business that was
already very profitable?
Mr.. Vest said the Sugar Trust was an open,
bold, admitted trust. 1t produced 80 per cent.
of all the refined sugar used in this country.
Its capital stock was S75, 600, COO and is paid IL
per cent. on its common stock and per cent
on its preferred stock. Wall street spectators
understood imme ately and almost intuitiveiy
the effect of proposed legislation on sugar, and
that the stock had gone up five points III 80
minutes on the action of the Republican eau
Gus.
NJ. Caffery Ia.) followed. The old fight
between the producers of raw sugar and the
retner. which in this country the trust
was, he said, OIL again. lie spoke OF the scan
dial of 1894 over the sugar schedule produced
by the rapacity Of the Sugar Trust. IL was to
be repeated. An effort had been made to show
that tile trust had been benefit by lowering
the price Of sugars; but any lowering of prices
was at the expense of the producer of the raw
article. as the differentials always remained the
same. The trust never lost. All it wanted
was sufficient tariff to keep out the foreign
product and then it had the American con-
sumner at its mercy. to be feeced at its sweet
will
Whom the next days session began Mr.. ALI
son moved to substitute one cent and ninety
ive-hundredths of cent per pound for one
cent and eight hundred and seventy-five one
thousandths of q cent the rate on sugars
above No. Is Dutch standard.
After further debate Mr.. Allison explained
the House and Senate schedules. The House
proposed q schedule beginning with one cent
on sugars testing IS degrees and increasing
3-100 of a cent for each degree above that. The
increase for each degree was due to the in
creased value OF the sugar. He himself had
believed a portion of the duty should be ad
valorem, but the House schedule was specific
aud those who believed in protection generally
favored specific duties. The Senate schedule
increased the duty on refined from 1.S7 in the
House bill to 195.
it was the policy Of this bill, said Mr. ALI
son. to do what Europe had done-establish the
VI sugar III tuf5 Country anu Keep
the 100000 900 annually paid for sugars by our
people at home. Were it not for that he
would advocate q revenue duty Of 40 or 45 per
cent. The schedule might not be arranged
precisely as 1t should be. but it was confessedly
within fraction of other schedules. If Sena-
tors on the other side could show that there
was an injustice, he would, be said. try to deal
with it in spirit of justice.
The vote on the amendment then taken re-
suited:
Yeas-Allison, Burrows, Carter, Cullom, d.
Wis, Deboe, Elkins, Fairbanks. Foraker, Frye
Gallinger, Hanna, Hansbrough. Hawley, Hoar,
Jones Of Nevada, Mcbride, McEnery. McMil-
Ian. Mason, Nelson, Perkins, Platt of Connecti-
cut. Pritchard, Proctor. Sewell, Shoup, Spooner
Stewart, Wellington, Wetmore, and Wilson-3z
Nays-Bacon. Bate, Berry, Butler, Gallery,
Chiffon, Clay. Cockrell. Daniel. Faulkner, Cor
| man, Gray, Heitfeld, Jones of Arkansas, Kyle,
Lindsay, Mallory. Mantle, Mills. Mitchell,
Morgan, Pasco. Pettigrew. Pettus. Roach. Till
man, Turpie, Vest, Walthall, and White-30.
The affirmative vote was made up of % Repub-