The times., 1897-06-11
$500 A MONTH

but If ii were not intruding upon caucus
matters he would like to know what the
amendment was
Mr.. Allison said that there was before
the Senate the House provision, which
must be considered, if The caucus amend
| ment did not come in.
Mr.. White appeared TO be satisfied with
| this nebuous condition OF the mysterious
amendment
Mr. Jones proceeded with his argument
lie said that the idea OF renting 81, 600 :
| 600 in tariff taxes on sugar frorl Hawaii
TO induce Hawaiians to buy 81 100000
worth OF our goods show how absurd
! was the proceeding Seven million dollars
| was lost sc the Treasury and one-quarter of
| a cent per pound on the value OF the sugars
went to the Sugar Trust without a cent
advantage TO the consumer
Mr.. Vest spoke next. The sugar schedule
had been formerly made the cause of
| vitupcration, libel and scandal. IL was in
1884 the Cape Hatteras of debate II was
not to be denied that the Sugar Trust was
| bald, admitted trust. II had a capital
of S75, ZOO, 900.
Nj Caffery5 by the consent OF Mr.. Vest,
here read list Of sugar stocks and their
great values, dividends, etc.
| Mr.. White desired to know whether
the recently amended Senate schedule
had affected the price of stocks.
Mr.. Vest answered that he was in
formed that the stocks Went up from about
| 11S TO 125 Immediately after the adj
| journnent of the caucus Wall street
| brokers Were never mistaken no matter
| whoever else might be mistaken.
| The tine basis of calculation for the
schedule he said, was important. Mr..
Dingiey took ninety-two and calculated up
| to ninety-Eine and down to seventy five,
| but Mr.. Vest believed that the basis
on which the question and the debate
were 10 be settled was ninety-six polar-
scope test.
lie said that the important considera-
tion was 20 be found iii the special pro-
lection given the Sugar Trust, which
was Interested only In The higher grades.
Under the Wilson BILL he said, 1.-The
| protection given at a 90 degrees test was
| "a and a fraction cents. Under the
| Dingley bill it was SO cents On the 100
pounds; under the Aldrich amendment t
| was 81 ITO cents, and under the caucus
amendment it W as 81 6-10, an increase OF
3 cents over the Aidrich amendment
| ION seventeen grades there is a slight
| decrease from the Aldrch schedule: upon
| nine others there is a considerable increase.
| / challenge contradiction to tie statement
| that 1T is q nest SIGNIFICANT fact that all
| the reductions are uron the lower grades
! and that all the higher grades are COR
| respondngly protected" As soon as the
| committee reached the fated 81 degrees
these significant facts appeared.
An amendment was offered by Senator
| Lindsay to put refined and unrefined sugar
on the same basis
Mr. Morgan also introduced an amend
ment, which appears elsewhere in The
| Times
Mr.. Caffery made the next argument,
| promising that when the Wilson bin was in
| proG ess there was scandal, and the pres
ent schedule appeared TO be overtaken by
| scandal, though In a less degree 1t was
easy to see what brought the Sugar Trust
to the doors Of Congress every session, de-
| handing legislation III its favor. The
| amount of sugar consumed annually in the
| United States was 1000, ,o0o eco pounds
| One cent pound on that meant $40 ,000,-
| 600, and half a cent round meant
| $50 1000 900 in favor of the trust Mr.
| Caffery quoted from Mr Havemeyer's testi-
mony ia the sugar cases in which the latter
admitted that the object of the trust was
to control prices up to the importing point,
and that it had succeeded
Mr. Caffery also showed that the trust
advanced the price when IL was formed
| and made in three years about $45, 600
| 600. he also argued that before and
| after the formation of the trust the profits
were enormous.
In the investigation before the Lexow
| Committee the Sugar Trust claimed that
| it had reduced prices, and some of the
| New York papers held that the Sugar
| Trust was an angelic agency after all
Granting that they did reduce the price
| to the consumer, the trust reduced the
| price to she producer, so that in any case
| it lost nothing. All it wants is differ
entail enough TO keep out the foreign i'm
ports, and to hold the local producer
and consumer at their mercy. Mr.. Caffery
here repeated the figures of the Dingiey
and Wilson hills and the present amend
menU, showing that the latter was cents
over the Aldrich amendment. IL the trust
controlled the prices at 34 cents, under
the Wilson bill, how had the Republicans
the face to make 1t 60 cents, and yet in
1894 they pour ed hot shot into the Demo-
Gratis for the enormous "a cents rate per
hundred pounds.
Mr.. Allison asked Mr. Cafferyif he would
vote TO strike out the 3S cents compensa-
tory part of she 81 cents, the 80 cents be-
ing intended TO meet the German export
bounty.
Mr.. Caffery replied that he would be
willing TO reduce the 3S cents to 12 1-2
cents; but as a general principle he was
opposed TO compensatory duties. Theex-
port bounty had reduced the Germans to
paying more for their sugar than we do
and all to satisfy an agraran interest.
He believed that the agrarian idea ought
to be rebuked in the United States. Is
there not some justice in the demand
that government should take away at
some time the props by which 1t holds
up an assured industry? Germany's posi-
tion was artificial and its protected fabric
must sooner or later come down.
Mr.. Caffery then adverted to the sugar
industry in Louisiana, and described the
sugar belt.
In the Wilson bill he advocated the 40
per cent ad valorem on sugar as it had
been revenue-producing product for a
hundred years.
Mr.. Caffery read the crop statistics Of
Louisiana In the SOS to show that under
80 per cent ad valorem the production
had increased He denied that it required
tariff Of 100 per cent or so per cent
now to keep the Louisiana industry alive.
Mr.. Caffery at this point suspended mis-
argument
MI Pettigrew asked what had become OF
his resolution of inquiry as to The Pacific