The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-07-20

ever advocated a duty on wool. Mr.. Nc
| Millin declared, was unjust to him and
| incorrect. He had been consistent
| Moreover, Mr.. McMillin in turn deIv-
ed into Mr.. Bailey'S past and pointed
| out occasions when the Lone Star
statesman had voted for free coal, free
barbed wire, free sugar and even free
wool in the F'ifty-second congress. Mr..
McMillin's comments on the inconsis-
tency of Mr.. Railey'S free wool vote
caused much merriment. In conclu-
sion he appealed to the Democracy to
go into the battle again, with ats banner
bearing the old motto.
Mr.. Bailey got the floor after Mr..
McMillin finished long enough to say
that when he cast the votes referred to
by Mr.. McMillin the Endorsed doctrine
of his party was for free raw material,
and as loyal Democrat he supported
its platform and declarations. He now
held commission from the Democracy
to oppose that doctrine and he should
do so.
Mr.. Payne and Mr. Dingley success
lively took the floor for some closing
remarks.
The former devoted his time to a de-
Tense of the sugar schedule. He fig
ured out differential in favor of the
ref1ner in the present law at the prices
prevailing in 1894 of 5212 cents per 100
pounds. Taking Mr.. SwansOn's Illus
tration of the 80 degree sugars, Mr..
Payne figured, on the basis of the
amount of raw sugar unrefined Q14k
pounds) that the refiner under the pres
ent law had a differentiaI of .314 per 100
pounds against .173 of a differential in
the proposed schedule.
Mr.. Dfngley openly avowed that the
schedule gave a slight additional pro-
lection to refined sugar. but at the
same time it raised raw all along the
line Trusts, he said, could not be
eradicated by epithets. THE way to
break down the trusts" he cried, lis to
congressional district in the country
and make competition. That is the
the way to clip the wings of the trusts"
Amid storm of cheers Mr.. Dingley
on the adoption of the conference re-
port. Vainly Mr.. Johnson (Rep., Ind)
tried to ask Mr.. Dingley a question
while the question was being put. Sew
was not recognized. The demand was
sustained by viva VOce vote and the
lowed by yeas and nays.
Considerable excitement occurred
while the vote was being taken. When
the speaker announced the vote, 1856
into loud cheers. The house then at
1917 a. m. took a recess until WedneS-
day.
Every Republican in the house who
was present voted for the report The
Democrats, with five exceptions, voted
against the report The exceptions
We're Sladen of Texas, Brossaurd of
Louisiana, Meyer of Alabama, Davey
u t~OO1SAoAlc1 anu LA1COS1S u 0AdS.
The Populists and siIverites did not
vote solidly. Mr.. Shafroth of Colorado
and Mr.. Newlands of Nevada, silver
ties, abstained from voting. Mr.. Hart
man, silverite of Montana, did not vote.
The Populists who voted against the
report were as follows: Baker, Bar
low, Botkin, Fowler, Jett, Marshall
Martin, Peters, Simpson, Stroud and
Vincent. Four did not vote-Howard
Kelly, Stark and Sutherland. The other
Populists were absent.
An analysis of the report shows that
$50 Republicans and Democrats voted
for the report, and LOG Democrats and
12 POpuliStS against it.