The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-06-08
OTIS OF TALK ABOUT LUMBER.
,EORGIA SENATOR'S AGAIN TAKE
PART IN THE DEBATE.

breaking of Party Lines, Eight
Democratic Senators Voting
Against MIR. Vests Proposition.
washington, June THE Senate to-day
disposed of the lumber paragraph, which
,as been mre stubbornly contested than
INV feature of the bill thus far, by de-
eating the motion of Senator Vest to
place white pine on the free list yeas 20;
rays, SS.
The contest was mainly significant in
breaking party lines, which have been
maintained with few exceptions during
he early stages of the debate, On the
tnal vote eight democratic senators voted
.galnst Mr.. Vests proposition, namely:
iessrs. Bacon and Clay of Georgia; Nc
emery of Louisiana; McLaurln and Till
nan of South Carodna; Martin of Vir-
ina Rawlins of Utah, and White
# California. On the other
and Mr.. Carter rep. and Messrs. Can
non and Mantle, silver republicans, voted
or the Vest motion.
Following this a vote to substitute the
wilson lumber schedule was defeated p
O 81. and the schedule was agreed to as
eported. The debate preceding the vote
vas at times very breezy owing to the
reak of political lines.
The consideration of the tariff bill was
.esumed soon after the session opened,
nd the discussion proceeded on the para
raph placing a duty of 81 per LOCO feet on
umber.
Mr. Allen, pop, of Nebraska, moved to
ubstitute the provisions of the Wilson
i'll. which placed lumber on the free list.
Me senator spoke in particular against
estoring white pine to the dutiable list,
rgng that the rates were designed to be
,ronibitory against Canadian pine. There
vas nothing, he said, in the clap-trap ar
ument of American high wages, as the
ages of lumbermen in Canada were, on
he whole, higher than in the United
,tates.
Mr. Berry, dem, of Arkansas, spoke
:gainst restoring the duty on white pine.
lie had been appealed to by the lumber
interests of his own state to support the
Oty. but he could not do it when it laid
such heavy tribute on the agricultural peo-
lie of the western states.
Mr. Bacon (dem) of Georgia, who Is
supporting the lumber duty, reminded Mr.,
Berry that his (Bacons) support was due
10 the fact that the duty was a revenue
rather than protective rate
Mr.. Berry responded with a vehement
erraignment of the bill as framed, he said,
in the interest of every trust and COM
bination in the country
Mr.. Caffery of Louisiana opposed the
duty on white pine, and incidentally crit
icsed the position of Mr.. Bacon, who, he
sad, favored protective duty. This the
senator from Georgia denied.
Mr. Caffery announced his opposition to
all protective duties. He favored the i'm
position Of pure revenue duties.
The platform l stand on" interposed
Mr.. Bacon, the orthodox of which the
I Arrf1f
subscribe to (Mr. Caffery sup
ported the indianapolis gold ticket war
rants my position. The Chicago platform
said: We favor a tariff for revenue with
duties so adjusted as to operate equally
throughout the country, and not discrim-
mate as to class or section 1t is that
plank contained in the platform on which
l stand"
Mr.. Caffrey said there might be a dis
crepancy between the Chicago and Indian
apoIis platforms, but the essence of dem
ocracy was opposed to tariff on raw ma
terials, because such a tariff necessar ily
required compensatory duties on manu-
featured articles.
My position said Mr.. Bacon, "is that
If duties are to be levied on manufactured
articles for revenue purposes they should
he levied on raw materials, that no favors
should be shown
Mr. Caffery sat down, but Mr. Hoar of
Massachusetts brought both him and Mr.
Bacon to their feet. Il suggest" said
he that the senators from Louisiana
and Georgia could save the time of the
Senate If they could agreed upon terms
The senator from Georgia should apply
his protection principles to sugar and the
senator from Louisiana his protective
principles to lumber"
IF the senator will substitute revenue
principles for protective principles, " OBJ
served Mr. Rannn no mil
agree"
"A protective duty on sugar by any
other name would be as sweet" replied
Mr. Hoar, ''and be a protective duty
still"
MIR. Caffery displayed some temper as
he pronounced Mr.. Hoar's statement that
he favored a protective duty on sugar
erroneous. There was not, he declared,
an iota of protection in his makeup.
Mr.. Bacon and Mr.. Caffery had a sharp
exchange and seemed about to subside,
but Senator Hoar evidently did not desire
this.
Again he made some rather sarcastic
references to Mr.. Caffery's Inconsistency,
describing him as a free trader who cried
always sugar" sugar" and who. when
the Wilson bill was before the Senate,
was so doubtful of what that bill would
do for sugar that he voted AYE" on the
sugar schedule and mo on the final pas
sage of the bill, and then changed to
yea"
The free trade senator from Louis
lana" he continued, finds only one excep-
ton to the application Of his theory-su-
gar; and the free trade senator from
Georgia another excepion-lumber."
Mr. Bacon protested at being termed
free trader. He favored a duty on all
raw material
IAN raw materials that compete with
the products of Georgia" remarked Mr..
Hoar amid laughter.
After Senator Caffery had made the
statement that he had no apologies to
make for his vote on the Wilson bill, the
debate became desultory.
Mr.. Allen OF Nebraska touched briefly
ON the subject Of duty on hides, and then
lnveighed against the lumber duties in the
mll. which, he said, would be particularly
oppressive TO the poor of Nebraska, who
were the victims of the lumber trust.
Mr. Thurston OF Nebraska defended the
proposed duty on lumber la some brief re-
marks
Mr. Jones of Arkansas characterized as
absurd the claim that this country was
being flooded" by foreign manufa cturers
81 lumber In the face OF the fact that but
sh5O00o OF lumber was imported last year