The evening tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 189?-190?, 1897-06-12
Caucus Amendments Passed by the
Republican Senator's
Question on Raising House
Sugar Rates.


/
he sugar schedule came yesterday In
Ihe senate. IL was the first amendment
agreed upon In the caucus OF Repubii-
can senators on Tuesday. when the
"Spooner compromise" WAS adopted.
The vote yesterday wns very close-Sz
10 30--Jones and Stewart OF Nevada ana
McEnery OF Louisiana voting with the
Republicans In favor of the spooner
and Kyle and Heitfelt with the
Democrats against II.
This vote insures the adoption OF the
caucus schedule In the senate, although
there are many who believe that, with
such a narrow margin, the house scheo-
uie will eventually be adopted.
The negative vote was made up or 20
Democrats, 3 Populists and silver Re-
publIcans. It was the closest vote thus
far taken on an issue of Importance. and
WAS accepted as showing that any
amendment having the sanction OF the
caucus was assured OF adoption.
Mr.. Caffery Of Louisiana opposed the
duty on sugar In q long speech. lie |
claimed It was iegislating In favor OF |
the Sugar trust. He went into details
on refining sugar, and SAID tnat inSs
much as the Sugar trust controlled all
the ref,neries In the United States II is
,rnpossibie to get accurate statistics on
the industry. The trust was constantly
besieging congress for favors. y
"The Sugar trust" said he, rs the only
~,~antic trust in the world which rests
entirely on legislation for Its support.
Rv legislation 1t controls the cane sugar
product of the world. and who
| rnrvs!.ss w. w. .,anu into the legislative hall
there was always q taint. kind Of NAL
odor arising from it's efforts TO get Iegfs-
lation In Its own behalf, and II II appears
from a reasonable showing that what
the trust asks is too much IL should be
refused"
Continuing. he taunted the Republi-
cans. after their experiment with sugar
bounty under the Mckinley law, for
| going back to sugar for a real revenue
| producing duty. "And then" said he,
"they have the audacity to throw In our
faces the insidious doctrine of protec-
tion."
| Upon the conclusion OF Mr.. Carery's
remarks Mr.. White of California took
the hoor. He arraignsd the Republi-
cans for their advocacy Of this sugar
schedule. From the debate on tho Will
son bill he read the remarks Of various
Republican senator's denouncing the
+ suEAr Schedule In that bill, which, Mr..
White said. was not half as advantage
Uus to the trust IS the proposed sohed-
t1le. He quoted Mr.. Plat Of Connecti-
cut, Mr.. Chandler Of New Hampshire
and Mr.. Allison Of Iowa. The latter had
said In the remarks quoted that II he
(Allison) could have hie way he you'd
strike from the bill every vestise OF pro-
lection for the trust. When he quoted
from Mr.. Gear Of Iowa he and the Iowa
senator were drawn into a sharp ex-
change about the way prosperity Jagged
behind It's predictions. Mr.. Gear de-
clared that prosperity would come when
the tariff bill was passed
One OF Mr.. Aldrlch's expressions as
to the effect Of the sugar duty on the
poor mans breakfast table was read
by Mr.. White In mocking tones.
The attitude Of Mr.. Lodge OF Massa-
chusetts, Morrill, of Vermont, Platt OF
Connecticut and other senators on the
Republican side, severely criticising the
sugar rates Of the Wilson bill, were re-
viewed by Mr.. White, with sarcastic
side remarks on consistency.
Mr.. German Of Maryland then spoke
against the schedule and the entire bill.
pointing out that It's effect was to bur-
den the people without opening up to the
United States new foreign markets.
Mr.. Stewart of Nevada asked Mr.. ALI
son to state before the vote was taken
whether this bill gave the refiners greater
advantage than the present law?
II have no doubt" answered Mr.. ALI
son, that excluding the countervailing
duty this bill does not give greater ad :
vantage to the sugar industry than the
Wilson BILL
Mr.. Allison proceeded to make a gen
eral statement. He said that thus IA r
senator's had been discussing decimal
figures and statistics without consider
Ing what lies a tthe basis of this and all
schedules.
I'VE have been taunted with the
bounty OF $780," said he. "and we hear
senators on the other side say they will
support a sugar duty on the theory that
II Is tax for revenue only. wish to
disclaim any responsibility for this duty
as revenue duty. II that were its
only objects II should not have my vote
I don't believe that II we were estab-
fishing revenue system on imports
alone that sugar should bear such pro-
portion OF the burden as Is imposed In
| this DILL
do you believe in protection TO labor
or to capital?" interposed Mr. Tillman OF
South Carolina.
There is generality" replied Mr.. Al
lison. Ito which the senator well knows
my answer. believe In protection TO
American labor. but believe In pro-
tocting American capital also from
foreign capital"
Mr.. Havemeyer. In his testimony, said
Mr.. Tillman. said that only 25.000 men
[ were engaged In the sugar refinery in
dustry. Yet you propose TO give the re-
finers differential which amounts to
between $1o.00O.00o and $40. 600 900 for the
protection OF $4,000 men.
1t was the policy OF this bill. replied
Mr.. Allison, to do what Europe had done
establish the production OF sugar I'm
this country and keep the 800, ,000. 900
annually paid for sugars by our peo-
pie at home.
Mr.. Caffery replied briefly 10 Mr.. ALI
son. and then the vote was taken.
/ .atl .,xTs f..x