The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1897-04-24
The stand By that Law and oppose the
Higher FAX in the IsingIey Bill.
From he pors Tobacco Times. Aprii Il.

Tl,e stand bs that Law and oppose fI'e
Higher FAX in the I,ingIey Bill.
From The PORT Tobacco Times. April II.
II IT. issue III last Saturday the baltimore
San had leading editorial strongly and effu-
giyely commencing Senator Gallery. Of Lonisi-
ana. for his recent refusal 70 comply with the /
request Of some Of his constituents to vote for 1
the Dingley tariff bill, because of its largely |
increased rates Of taxation Oh sugar over those /
of the existing law, from which we make the /
following quotation:
Senator Caffery's views, As expressed IN MS 1
receia letter to the New Orleans Board Of !
Trade. are as we have said, in refreshing con-
trast no this selfish policy Of seeking protec-
ton for special and local interests without re-
ference to the general good, or to any prln- |
eiple governing or restricting all such legisla-
ton. Louisiana has special interest which /
she is particularly anxious to have protect
ed'-suear. The New Orleans Board Of
Trade, the Chamber of Commerce and the |
Sugar Exchange have all addressed communl-
cations to Senator Gallery, bespeaking his
support for the Dingley bill Senator Gallery
is himself sugar planter, but he Is also loyal
and consistent democrat The sterling quality
Of his Democratic principles would not permit
him 10 lend his support 10 the political vagarIes
Of the populists and the free sllverites who IN
the last presidential campaign usurped the
name Of democracy They viii not permit
him now to surrender the democratic doctrine
OF tariff for revenue only even 10 pur
chase governmental protection for his own
interests and those Of his brother planters IN
Louisiana.
Il also quotes Senator cafery's letter as
follows:
He says: ..You have a fair tariff under the
Wilson bill. Under it sugar flourishes as well
as any agricultural interest in the United
States that I know of If the Republican
party, dropping the great financial question,
on the strength Of which it went into power,
thinks to evade that question by piling up
more revenue, sugar presents a good article
to get it from. But neither you nor our peo-
pie have any right to demand more tariff TO
build up your and their individual prosperity
when you already enjoy a reasonable amount.
..The Dingley bill carries rates between
and 10 per cent higher than the Mckinley
bill It is, in my opinion, indefensibe from
any standpoint Of protection or tariff for
revenue.
Il viii not vote for it. will vigorously
oppose it.
The Sun fails, however, and has up to the
present time failed and utterly neglected to
commend or even mention the views OF Sena'
tor Gallery on the question OF sugar taxation
in the Fifty-third Congress when the Wilson
bill was in the difficult process of enactment
into law. although his views at that time, as
expressed in his speech in the Senate, were
quite as able, quite as forcible and quite as
pointed as on the recent occasion. We shall
endeayor therefore, TO correct this oversight
on The part of the Sun by making few bret
qxehRions from the speech of Senator Gallery
on that interesting occasion.
II was in the Senate of the United States,
on July 20, 1894, the Senate having under
consideration the conference report on the
Wilson tariff bill and the pending question
being on Mr.. Vias's motion to strike outthe
one-eighth Of a cent differenral duty re-
fined sugar Mr.. Gallery addressed the Senate
as follows:
Mr.. Gallery. 'BIr. President. understand
the motion of the Senator from Wisconsin
Mr.. Yilas1 to be an instruction to the Senate
conferees to drop the differenlial of one-eighth
upon refined sugar, which has been adopted
by the votes of the Senate. During the course
Of the Senator'S remarks | ventured to ask
him question. after a strong expression on
his part and which he referred back to me
for a response. 1t is absolutely useless for
me to say that representing my State and its
chief staple product ] have no concern with
or interest in tire sugar trust. ! am here TO
advocate so far as ! can the interest," OF my
State in this particular. The one-eighth being
taken off VIII strike a deadly blow at that in
terest."
Mr.. Palmer II should like to make
statement and ask tie Senator from Louisiana
a question. ! have never been able to COM
prehend how the producers of sugar are inter
ested in retaining the one-eghth for the re-
fners. hope he will show how the produc
ers are interested.
Mr.. Gallery. .'The explanation is very
simple The producer Of cane in Louisiana
is mostly a manufacturer of sugar the Lou
isiana planter, by adopting the recent i'm
proved methods, turns out a sugar which goes
into consumption ~ refined sugar. 1t is a
centrifugal sugar, quite equal to the German
granulated sugar, which is the great competing
sugar which the trust has to contend with. 7
Il have constantly heard upon this floor
the declaration made that if the gentlemen
framing this bill had their way there would
be no tax upon sugar It is about time to
talk plainly, and propose to do so now.
make no threats, no ordinations There is
none Of that sort of thing in me. When the
test comes here as to whether | will sit in my
seat aud see the industry destroyed upon which
the prosperity of my state is founded, shall
act promptly and decidedly.
II here distinctly state if the amendment
proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin to
strike ont the one-eighth differential on refined
sugar1 is adopted, and if the promise of the
Senate Finance Committee TO give modi-
cum Of bounty is not complied with, the bill
will not have my support or sanction. See
Congressional Record, Vol. 26, page 7741-2-3.
On the same day Senator Blanchard, the
other Senator from Louisiana, made speech
to the same effect, which is recorded on pages
TAG and 7747 of the same volume Of the Con
gressional Record, in the course of which be
said
ssAh Mr. President, the scarecrow used by
the Senator from Wisconsin and by others to
frighten the Senate away from this one-eighth
duty is the sugar trust. Somebody is riding
the sugar trust as a hobby. Somebody is
seeking to make good deal of capital out of
its alleged connection with legislation relating
to the tariff. | speak plainly, Mr.. President,
but | speak without intention of ofense. The
sugar trust-or the sugar refining company,
more properly-no doubt has large interest
IN the retention of this one-eighth duty, but SO
have the sugar producers of the country. Ii
il a fact that all the Deet sugars made in this
country are refined sugars. 1t is further
fact that we manufactured in Louisiana last
year 100000 pounds of cane sugars, Of
which "a per cent. were refined sugars, in the
sense that they tested at and above No. 16
Dutch standard in color. x There
fore, the duty of one-eighth is in the bill for
the benefit Of the sugar producers as much as
It Is for the trust. It was part of the stipula-
ton of the caucus agreement. 1t is wanted
by the people for whom my voice is raised
today. It cannot be stricken out by Demo
cratic votes without violation of the caucus
understanding
There is, of course, nothing at all inconsis
tent in Senator Caffery having at that time
insisted upon the imposition of fair revenue
duty upon both raw and refined sugar as the
condition of his support of the Wilson bill at
o time when the vote of every Democratic
Senator was necessary to secure its passage,
and now refusing to vote for the Dingley bill,
which reinstates the old Mckinley rate of
one-half cent pound differenta on refined
sugar and largely increases the rate on raw
sugar, on the ground, as he frankly states it,
that "you have fair tariff under the Wilson
bill" Senator Gallery showed very conclu-
sively in his able speech from which we have
made brief quotations, that during century
of tariff legislation, with the single exception
Of the Mckinley law, sugar had always been
regarded as an article of revenue taxation.
It was upon this proposition he based his firm