The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-03-27
Much Time Spent by Democratic Mem
bdrs in Attempting tn Manufac-
ture Political Capital.
AN ANTITRUST AMENDMENT
OF THE BUNCOMBE ORDER OFFERED
IN VARIETY OF FORMS,
But Rejected by Strict Party Vote ATT
err Three Hours of Dcbn te-Changes
Made by the Committee.

WASHINGTON. March 26.-The tariff bill
was thrown open for amendment under the
1ive-minute rule in the House to-day. but
seven weary hours of work only served to
dispose of nine of the 162 pages of the bill.
All the amendments offered by the Demo-
Gratis were rejected. Three slight commit
tee AMENDMENTS were adopted. and also
an amendment offered by Mr.. Mahany, Re
publican, of New York, 10 increase the
duty on white lead from 21s to 3 cents per
pound, the rate in the act of 1890. The pres
ent duty is 1h cents. Mr.. Mahany said
the increase was asked for by a concern
which was Independent of the Lead Trust.
1t was adopted by a strict party vote. The
discussion covered a wide range of politi-
cal topics, and at times was both interest
ing and exciting. BY far the most impor-
tant feature of the day was the attempt or
Mr.. Dockery of Missouri. Mr.. Cooper of
Texas. and others, backed by the entire
opposition. TO secure a vote on an amend
ment offered in a multitude of forms which
provided that in case any article made du-
table by the bill was controlled by a trust
or combination the duty on such article
should be suspended. Mr.. Dingley made
the point of order that the amendment was
not germane to the dutiable list and would
not be in order until the free list was
reached. For almost three hours this point
of order was fought over. and made the
subject of examinations and examinations.
The Democrats commended that if the
amendment was ruled out il would never
be voted on. as the free list, in all human
probability, would not be reached before
the final vote was taken. The chair sus-
tanned the point of order. An appeal was
taken. but the chair was sustained by a
strict party vote-15S to 1914.
When consideration of the bill began at
10 o'clock this morning Mr.. Lanham (Dem.,
Tex moved to strike out the s~nacting
clause. Mr.. Sherman (Rep.. n. ", who
was in the chair, ruled that the motion was
out of order.
Mr.. Dockery Dem. MOI offered the first
amendment. 1t was TO the enacting clause
and was in the nature of a proviso that
whenever ii was shown to the satisfaction
of the President that there was a trust or
combination to control the price of any arti-
Gle on the dutiable list the duty on such
article should be suspended.
DINGLEY'S POINT OF ORDER.
Mr.. Dingley made the point of order that
the amendment in effect was to the free
list and as the House was now considering
the dutiable list it was not in order.
Il have great respect for the parliament
tary knowledge of the gentleman from
All Sdlu MI. DothtTN, u DIS II Is
probable that the free list will never be
reached, L hope it will be held in order
now" Uaughter.)
Mr.. Cooper ,Dem., Tex.) offered a substi-
tute for the Dockery amendment. in sub
stance to m the same purpose, but
containing "a definition of "A trust and pro-
vision for the determination OF its existence
by a court.
IF you are so anxious to incorporate such
"a provision as this in the bill. why did you
not insert il in the present lave" asked Mr..
Tawney (Rep., Minn.)
Trusts had not gone quite so far them
replied Mr.. Richardson QDem.. .Tenn.), amid
laughter. He challenged the other side, who
OStenSibly opposed TO trusts, to aid in the
adoption of the amendment.
1 have never before he said, heard
such lnsincere objections to a just amend
meat
A long debate on the point of order fol-
ment. appealing to the majority TO aid in
putting down these combinations, which
preyed on the energies OF the people.
MIR. Hepburn (Rep., Ia.) raised a laugh on
the Democratic side by saying that this
amendment, if adopted, would defeat the
shouted, waving his hand. He went on To
explain how easy 1t would be for a few
men who really desired free wool and free
sugar TO effect a combination to raise the
prices of sugar and wool and thus, under
the amendment, force these articles to the
Mr.. Bailey thanked Mr.. Hepburn for his
frank admission that the destruction of
trusts would interfere with the purpose of
the bill.
oh. no." said Mr.. Hepburn. II was trv-
ing to show that under the pretense of
Creating a trust this legislation could be
destroyed"
But could not the courts decide between
a sham trust and a real trust?" asked Mr..
Terry tDem., Ark
Il suppose the courts could" replied Mr..
Hepburn. But shall the revenues of the
country be destroyed because of the exist
ence in violation of law of a real trust?
[ Nprr-t No.. fIiAHal T1AA;- -
inals. Shall We place the treasury reve-
nues at the mercy of criminals"
Mr.. Simpson Pop. Kan.) said he thought
the majority was very much more con-
cerned about the falling off of the revenues
or trusts than the falling of of the reve-
nues OF the treasury. democratic APP
Dlause.)
GROSVENOR RAISES A STORM.
Mr.. GrosvenOr (Rep, Ohio declared there
never was a time when the trusts had the
government and the people by the throat
as they had had in the last four years and
now when the Democrats were again in the
minority they came here and raised a great
fog about trusts. He said the ways and
means committee had already been assailed
because they had refused to accede to the
demand of the Sugar Trust for an ad
valorem duty on sugar.
THE gentleman says the Democracy has
been the protector of trusts" interrupted
WI ASiiS NDNAif hihj al Hc udihc a
trust in the last campaign which was not
on the side of Mckinley
II can"
Name them, name them shouted the
Democrats.
THE trust replied Mr.. Grosvenor.
which controls a monopoly of what God
gave-the silver trust" The Republicans
cheered this response while the opposition
grOaned.
There was some further sharp cross firing
which reused both sides TO enthusiasm.
Mr.. Newlands tSilverite, New declared
that most of the trusts created in the past
ten years had been for protection against
falling prices, even labor was organizing
trusts for the purpose and the cotton plant
ers were organizing to limit production in
Mr.. Bland Dem. MOI declared that
hardly a state legislature met last winter
that did not seek to lay the heavy hand
of law on these gigantic corporations. Mr..
Tawney declared the opposition was at
tempting to make some cheap political
capital out of this alleged assault on trusts.
The Republican party was the only party
that had ever enacted antitrust legislation
IN Congress-. He created much amusement
by reading a list of the prominent Demo-
Gratis I'm the present House who voted
against consideration of the antitrust law
Iassed by the Fifty-first Congress.
'Wfll you name a single conviction under
that law" asked Mr.. Richardson.
Monday the Supreme Court decided that
the great railroad trust OF the country
violated that law" Republican applause)
Mr.. Richardson, Mr.. Tawney said. raised
the question of consideration against the
antitrust hill.