Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-06-12
55th CONGRESS.
The Tariff BiII's Future Set.
tied by the Sugar Vote.
Senate Adopts Amendment to House
Schedule by Vote Of 81 to 80.
Closest Vote Thus Far Taken and Practically
Iasurss Bilrs Passage.

Washington, June 1.-THE first test
vote on the sugar schedule was taken
in the Senate, lare today. resulting in
the adoption Of the Republican caucus
/, amendment changing the House rate
to LOS per pound by the close vote OF
yeas, 80; nays, 30. The affirmative
vote was made up of 20 Republicans.
one Democrat, McEnery Of Louisiana,
a Silver Republican, Jones OF Nevada,
and one Populist. Stewart Of Nevaua.
The negative vote was made up of Is
Democrats, three Populists and two
Silver Republicans. 1t was the closest
vote thus far taken on an issue of I'M
portance and was accepted as showing
that any amendment having the sane
ton of the caucus was assured Of
| adoption.
The tariff bill was taken up at 12.15.
and the consideration of the sugar
schedule resumed. The parliamentary
| status Of the sugar discussion was as
follows: The House paragraph, 206, be-
ing under consideration, Mr.. Allison had
| moved to substitute 1 cent and $500
cent per pound for l cent and 875-1000
as the rate on sugars above No. Is
Dutch standard.
Jones. Ark, had indicated further
purpose but had not yet made the for
NAL notice to make the differential rate
n cent per pound. Jones began the
discussion by placing in the record a
statement Of sugar expert. showing
| the price of each grade of sugar, the
rate of taxation on each under the Will
son act and under the proposed sched-
ules.
Turpie, Ind, in behalf Of the minority
of the finance committee, gave notice
of a new amendment to be offered as
an additional paragraph to the internal
revenue provisions placing a tax of 2
per cent. on estates of descendants If
the inheritance amounts to $4,000 or
more, and is not for the benefit of a
religious, charitable, educational or like
institution. The tax is to be in force
for five years from Jan. 1, 1898.
The question then reverted to the
|committee amendment but he had not
offered 1t, and had now determined not
to offer it at present. He preferred to
have the vote taken on the committee
proposition, and later, he said, he might
propose his amendment. AS the roll
call was about to begin, Gallery, La,
took the floor and read newspaper.
account of the growth and development
of the Sugar Trust.
The extracts read by Caffery were
very long. 1t gave in detail the profits
of the trust for years, its absorption
of lesser sugar establishments and the
internal business affairs of the organ
iZation. Caffery then took up the
question, as to the amount of raw
sugar required to make a pound of re-
fined sugar 1t was a well-known fact,
he said. that all the secret processes
of sugar refining were known only to
the refiners. He questioned the calcu-
lations made by the treasury depart
ment and said their accuracy was
challenged by competent chemists.
Allison remarked that the government
figures were regarded as accurate as
whole.
Caffery said one reliable expert
stated that the government figures
were taken from the trust officials who
had exclusive control of the informal
ton and this expert asserted that the
estimates were far too high as to the
oAhCAht VI 10" sugar iSquIOu " HIdhS
a pound of refined sugar. The senator
read corrected statement showing
that on each grade of sugar the treas
ury figures were several pounds in ex-
cess of the corrected figures. Caffery
went en- to say that a counter vailing
duty of 3S-100 on German granulated
sugar was ample protection to the
American refiners. The trust was con-
stantly besieging Congress for favors
''The Sugar Trust" said he, sis the
only gigantic trust in the world which
rests entirely on legislation for it's sup
port
I Plat, Rep, Conn.,, aroused Caffery
to another indignant protest against
the repealed limitations thrown out
from the other side that he wanted
protection for the sugar producer
Your position" said Plat, sis free
trade for the refiner and protection for
the producer"
Il have stated, and I repeat it
again." replied Caffery, that sugar is
the ideal article for Democratic rev.
enue duty. If it were for protection 1
should not advocate it,"
Continuing he tainted the Republic
cans, after their experiment with sugar
bounty under the Mckinley law, for
going back to sugar for real revenue
producing duty. And then" said he,
they have the audacity to throw in
our faces the insidious doctrine of PRO
lection" He had never, he said.
owned a single share Of that company
and was only in a very small way a |
sugar planter.
How much sugar did you produce,
last year?" asked Plat.
About 100000 pounds. replied Caffery,
from farm of 500 acres. I am the !
smallest planter in my parish, but say |
to you that IL all my fortunes were in |
volved In sugar duty would not |
support 1t except for revenue. A public |
man who is confined within the narrow |
limits of selfish intefeat Il not Mt to
hold seat in the United States Sem
ate"
Upon the conclusion Of Caffery's re-
marks, White, Cal. took the floor. He
arraigned the Republicans for their adj
vOcacy Of this sugar schedule. From |