The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-11

/ rehned sugar upon which Mr.. Aldrich based
his calculations of 230 cents was too low.
II should have been 2.66. he said. Still, tax
ing AIR. Aldrich's figures, Mr.. Jones calcu-
Iated margin of from .43 to .5S cent per
pound TO the refiners. He announced that
this schedule, which it was claimed gave
less profit TO the refiners than the House
| schedule, would give a far greater pfoht
| than the House schedule He had looked
| conscleutiousy into the question Wlthout
prejudice and he became satisfied tnat q
! clear diferential OF Is of a cent was rlght.
| Under that differential the company
profits had increased How could the other
! side now justify a further increase OF the
! differential He should propose, he said, a
| duty Of / cent per pound on sugars test
ing 70 degrees with an increase OF 800 on
| each degree above that and a diuerentlaI OF
! - on refined. Mr.. Jones explained at some
| length his Interpretation OF the sugar
| schedule from a technical standpoint, read
! ing expert opinion 10 substantlate ms
| claims.
Mr.. White asked what course was to be
! pursued as TO the Hawaiian provision or
| the paragraph under consideration. To this
| Mr.. Allison replied that the proviSo was
! in the bill as it stood at present and would
! have to be considered sooner or later. Ihe
! committee might and might not submit a
| new proposition and the subject might be
! sent to the committee on foreign relations.
SPEECH BY MIR VEST.
Mr.. Vest followed Mr. Jones in criticism
of the general features of the sugar sched-
ue. 1t had always been, he said, the Cape
Hatteras of the tariff debate. 1t involved
gigantic Sugar Trust. which had absorbed
refinery after refinery until it was supreme
and all powerful in the field The LeXow
investigation had disclosed the enormous
profits of this trust. 1t showed, he said, a
capital Of $75, 100000 common stock and $l5,-
| 000 900 preferred stock, an aggregate or Slo0,-
600 0O0 with profits of u per cent. on it's
common stock and per cent. on the pre-
| ferred stock. 1t was an open, bold, au-
mtted trust.
7
said he desired to show the fluctuations of
the stock and the sales for some months.
He read the lowest and highest mark of the
stock and the daily sales for long period,
showing the t1ourishing condition OF the
Mr.. Vest cut off some. cross-fring between
Mr.. White and Mr.. Caffery to the effect
of the proposed schedule on the price OF
Sugar Trust stock by resuming. .ss his speech:
action here on Sugar stock,
said he. waving. his arms, we
is one place where there is no doubt-that
is, among the spectators in Wall street.
They know Immediately and instinctively
what effect a proposed schedule will have
There is no question about the correctness
of their conclusions. And they put the
price of Sugar stock up IS a share within
agreed on by the caucus. They know wheth-
er this schedule is more favorable than
the existing law or the Dingley bill sched-
from 11S to 124. L have heard predictions
from those who ought to know that If this
schedule stands Sugar will go up to 100 a
share
Proceeding, Mr.. Vest pointed out the great
revolution Which had occurred in the past
two years in the sources of the trusts su-
gar supply. Mr.. Vest described the new
sugar schedule as ingenious and artistic.
certained, and was prepared to prove math-
ematically, that the protection given the
trust on sugar testing So degrees IN
the present law was "a cent a pound; In
the Dingley schedule, SO; in the original
Senate BILL, 81, and in the new schedule
agreed on by the Republican senatorial
caucus, 81 In conclusion Mr. Vest declared
that the schedule 6eluded the public in the
interest of this gigantic monopoly"
strikes out of the House schedule in Para
graph 206 the words mot above No. 16
Dutch standard in color and also strikes
out the provision in the same paragraph for
the differential duty on refined sugar.
MORGAN'S AMENDMENT.
Mr. Morgan at this point gave notice of
| the following amendment, to be offered at
the proper time: "A tax of 1 cent per pound
is hereby levied and shall be assessed and
| collected on sugar that is the product of
| any refinery of sugar in the United States,
! but the persons or corporations engaged in
| the business of refining sugar, in whose
| business there is employed less than $1O0 600
| of cash capital, and who are not connected
| in business by agreement with any other
sugar are exempt from such tax. The laws
for the collection of the tax on tobacco, SO
far as they are applicable to the subject of
| this enactment, shall apply to the collection
| of the tax imposed by this act upon refined
sugar And no person or. corporation shall
| be exempt from the tax on sugar refined az
| any sugar refinery who shall not clearly eS-
! tablish the right to such exemption under
| the rules and regula tions to be prescribed
| by the secretary of the treasury for the eX-
| ecution of this law"
| Mr.. Cafery followed. The old fight be-
| tween the producers of raw sugar and the
refner, which in this country was the
| trust, was, he said, again on. He spoke OF
| the scandal of 1894 over the sugar schedule,
| produced by the rapac1ty OF the Sugar
| Trust 1t was to be repeated now. There
| were consumed in this country 1000 600 900
pounds of sugar annually. If the trust was
| to receive half a cent a pound, as this
| schedule proposed, that would mean $780,
| 100000 to the trust Here, then, was the
| impellent cause which brought this great
| corporation to Washington to look after its
| interests. They not only control the price,
| but they advance 1t, he said. A statement
| made by him, he said would show that un-
| der all of the tariff acts the profits of the
| Sugar Trust were very large. The trust
| never lost. All it wanted was sufficient tar
| iH to keep out the foreign producer, and
! then 1t had the American consumer at it's
| mercy, TO be heeced at its sweet will. The
trust had said they would be ruined by any
| dinerential under 1s cent per pound and yet
| they had thrved under such a rate.
Mr.: Caffery then took up the sugar pro-
| duction of his own State While he had
| been in the Senate the sugar producers had
| besieged him to place a high tariff on their
! product. When the Wilson bill was consd-
| cred he had voted for a duty of 40 per cent.
| because sugar had been recognized as a
| legitimate revenue-producing article. No
one up to that time questioned that sugar
| came within the strict letter of Democratic
| doctrine of a tariff for revenue. But with
! this had grown up many erroneous impress
! sions as to the need of an excessive duty.
! Under a 30 per cent. ad valorem duty of the
| law of 1S46 the production of sugar had in
! creased enormously. reaching 495 00O 600
| u nt Ayttx 4
! shown like results, so that he did not be-
| Heve a 100 per cent. or 80 per cent. duty was
necessary to keep the Louisiana sugar in
| dustry afloat.
At $40 p. m. the Senate held an executive
session, and then adjourned.