The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-06-08
PARTY LINES BROKEN
Eight Democratic Senators Voted to Tax
Lumber Two Dollars a Thousand.
MARTIN OF VIRGINIA so RECORDED
Chicago VS.. Indian npoIEs Platform
lIonr Touches CnHcry in Il Tender
Spot-Tillnann Sets the Galleries in
ROar-SuEar Schedule Reached
and Passed Over.
Washington, June 7. 1897.

Washington, June 7. 1897.
The Senate to-day disposed OF the
lumber paragraph, which has been more
stubbornly contested than any feauture
Of the bill thus far by defeating the mo-
ton OF Senator Vest to place white pine
on the free list-yeas, 90 nays. 3S. The
contest was mainly significant in break
ing party lines which have been MAIN
tained with few exceptions during the
early stages Of the debate. On the final
vote eight Democratic Senators voted
against Mr. Vests propOSitiOn-nam
Messrs. Bacon and Clay. Of Georgia;
McEnery, Of Louisiana; McLaurin and
Tillman, Of Souh Carolina; Martin, Of
Virginia; White, of California, and Raw
Inns. Of Utah.
On the other hand, Mr.. Carter (Re-
pubican), and NIessrs. Cannon and
Mantel (Silver Republicans) voted for
the Vest motion. Following this Il vote
to substitute the Wilson lumber sched-
ule was defeated-21-3 the sched-
ule was agreed to as reported.
The debate preceding the vote was at
times very breezy, owing TO the break OF
political lines.
The consideration Of the tariff bill was
resumed soon after the session opened
and the discussion proceeded on the par
agraph placing Il duty OF 81 per 1000 feet
on lumber.
Mr.. Allen (Pop.), OF Nebraska. moved
w
son bill, which placed lumber on the
Tree list. The Senator spoke In particu-
lar against restoring White pine to the
dutinble list urging that the rates
We're designed to be prohibitory against
Canadian pine. There was nothing, lie
said IN the "clap-trap argument Of
lEsA Anerican high wages. as the wages
: OF lumbsr1ntfYis sfif"t shiies9ss We're. o1pzslsa
whole higher than In the United States.
Mr. Berry, CT Arkansas spoke against
restoring the duty on white pine. He
had been appealed TO by the lumber in
terests Of his own State to support the
duty but he could not do it when it
laid such heavy tribute on the agricul-
tural people OF the Western States.
Mr.. Bacon. Of Georgia, who is sup
porting the lumber duty, reminded Mr..
Berry that his (Bacon's) support was
due to the fact that the duty was a reye-
nue. rather than protective rate.
MI Berry responded with q vehement
arrniSnmcnt Of the bill. framed, he said.
IN the interest OF every trust and COM
bination in the country
MIR Caffery, OF Louisiana, opposed the
outY on white pine, and incidentally cri-
IlclSed the position Of Mr.. Bacon Of
Georgia, who. he said, favored a pro-
tective duty. This the Senator from
Georgia denied
Mr. Caffery announced his opposition
10 all protective duties. He favored the
AiiPoSitiOll VI pure revenue duties.
Ihe platform / stand on" intcrposed
MIR. Bacon, "the orthodoxy Of which the
Senator from Louisiana may not SUBJ
scrioe to Nlr. Caffery supported the
indianapolis gold ticket, warrants nv
position The Chicago platform said.
we faVor tariff for revenue with du-
Ties SO adjusted as to operate equally
throughout the country and not discrim-
mate as to class or section" II Is that
plank IN the platform upon which T
stand" :
MT. Caffery said there might he a dis
crepancy between the Chicago and m
dlapapois platforms, but the essence of
democracy was opposed to a tariff on
raw materials because such a. tariff
necessarily required compensatory d,I-
ties or manufactured articles.
MY position" said Mr.. Bacon "is
that II duties are to be levied on manu-
1actured articles for revenue purposes.
they should be levied also on raw ma
telaals-that no favors should be shown, -
Nlr. Caifery sat down, but Mr.. Hoar.
OF Massachusetts, brought both him and
MT: Bacon 20 their feet II suggest" I"
said he, that the Senators from Geor-
bla and Louisiana could favc the time
OF the Senate If they could agree upon
terms. The Senator from Georgia should
apply his protection principles to su-
gar and the Senator from Louisiana his
protective principles TO lumber"
IF the Senator Will substitute rcve-
nue. principles for protective princi-
Pies observed Mr.. Bacon, good ma
turedly, II Will agree"
a protective duty on sugar by any
other name would be as sweet" replied
Mr. Hoar. "and be n protective duty
stili,'
Mr.. Caffery displayed some temper a .
he pronounced Mr.. Hoars statement
that he favored a protective duty on
sugar erroneous. There was not. he de-
clared. an iota OF protection in his make
up.
Mr.. Bacon and Mr.. Caffery had sha,p
eNchangs and seemed about to subsidc
but Senator Hoar evidently did not de-
sire that
Again he made some rather sarca stic
references 10 Mr.. Caffery's inconsist-
ency, describing him as q free trader
who cried always "Sugar-sugar-su
gar 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 no on the final passage Of the bill
and then changed to yea"
The free trade Senator from Louis
lana he concluded, finds only one cx-
ception to the application of his theory
sugar: and the free trade Senator
from Georgia, another exception-luIn-
ber"
a1r. Bacon protested at being termed