The age-herald., 1900-04-13
MORGAN MOTION
 VAS DEFEATED He Failed to Bring Up the Ni- eaIagua Bill BURROWS DEBATED QUAY CASE The Spooner Philippine Bill Had a Narrow Escape from Being Dis-
 place by the Alaskan
 Civil Code Bill.
BURROWS DEBATED QUAY CASE

made in the senate today by MT. Morgan to displace the present unfinished business, the Spooner Philippine bill, by the substf- tuition in its stead of the Ncaraguan canal bill. While MT. Morgans motion failed, 15 to B, the Philippine measure had mar
 row escape from being displaced by the l Alaskan civil code bill on motion of Mr. | Garter, the motion being defeated on
 roll call, P to 24.
 | The feature of the days proceedings was an exhaustive discussion of the Quay case 1 by MT. Burrows of Michigan. Senators on | both sides of the chamber gave him most | careful hearing and at the conclusion of | his speech warmly congratulated him. MT. Jones of Arkansas, chairman of the | democratic national committee, opened the session with a sharp retort to charges made against him in the house yesterday by Mr. Deliver of Iowa.
 He read from the Record the following
 quotation from the speech of MT. Deliver, delivered in the house yesterday on the | Porto Rico bill:
 T accuse the chairman of the democratic | national committee of being in the same | conspiracy, if you will permit me so to speak. I hold in my hand a proposed amendment offered by Senator Jones of | Arkansas to the bill, now become a law, | to give the proceeds of the present Porto | Rican customs to the people of Porto Rico, | an amendment which, if it had been passed, would have given to the American Sugar Refining company $1, 800 900 which they have | already in cash in the treasury of the United States on sugar imports from Porto | Rico"
 | T, as rule, pay no attention to asper-
 sions of this character" said MT. Jones, l but it may be possible that some honest | men have been misled or might misjudge | what has been done by me. MT. JoDes's Explanation When the Porto Rican bill was pre-
 sented in the senate, I offered an amend
 ment, proposing to refund the duties that
 had been collected from the people of
 Porto Rico to the people who had paid the duties. l did that from the conviction that
 the government of the United States had
 no right to levy any tariff duties upon | products coming from Porto Rico, and
 if we had no such right it was common
 honesty that we should give the money
 back to the people from whom we had | taken it.
 | nau never looked to see who had
 paid these revenues nor where this money
 would go. I am not in the confidence of | the sugar trust. They have not come to
 me to complain of that duty by which they l paid $1,S00,000. I did not know that such was the fact. Men who are more familiar | with the doings of the sugar trust of l course know more about it than I, if they
 paid million and a half into the treas ury of the United States I know noth- l ing about it. What understood the facts l to be, were that protests were made when l these duties were levied and that case l was pending in the supreme court of the l United States, and I believe that when | the supreme court decides this question
 it will direct this money shall be paid l back to the men who paid it. 1 T believe in doing justice no matter who is involved. believe in giving the l devn his due, and if we have no right
 under the law to levy the tax, and the l sugar trust has paid a part of it, and the
 money is due them, it ought to be re- | funded.
 | T have no fear of being misjudged by l any member of this body. I do not believe l any motive of this kind has ever been at l tributed to me by man who has a sense
 of justice and a desire to have his fellow | men think well of him. l Withdrew tho Amendment l "Then 1t was stated that large part of ' the money paid was paid by the sugar 1 trust and the tobacco trust. I withdrew l the amendment. No vote was taken on it. After discussion I made up my mind that | the proper thing to do was to leave the matter to be settled by the court; that having gone to the length we had it was better to let the courts say Wether this | thing should be done. There is nothing that I think anybody can justly censure me with"
 MT. Morgan asked unanimous consent | that the Nicaragua canal bill be made the | order of business for o'clock, April 30, | but MT. Lodge, in charge of the Spooner | Philippines bill, objected. 'I shall feel bound," said MT. Morgan, | ito antagonize the senator's bill with the Nicaragua canal bill"
 MT Burrows of Michigan then addressed | the senate on the resolution relative to ] seating Hon. M s. Quay as a senator from Pennsylvania.
 The unfinished business, the Spooner bill being before the senate, MT. Morgan
 moved to proceed to the consideration of the Nicaragua bill, which would have dis placed the Spooner bill as the unfinished business.
 Morgan's Motion Lost The motion was lost 15 to 33, as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Bacon. Bate, Berry, Clay, Culberson, Daniel, Foster, Harris, Heit- feldt Jones (Ark.), Jones (Nev), Money, Perkins Tallaferro, Vest-15. Nays-Messrs. Allison, Baker, Bard,
 Carter, Cullom, Davis Deboe, Depew,
 Fairbanks, Foraker, Gallinger, Hans- brough, Hawley, Kean, Lodge, McComas, McCumber, McMillan, Martin Nelson,
 Pettigrew, Platt (Conn.), Platt (N. Y.), Quarles, Ross, Scott, Sewell, Shoup, Stew
 art, Teller, Thurston, Tillman, Warren.-
 33.
 MT. Carter then asked the senate to pro-
 ceed with the Alaskan code bill, but the
 motion was defeated-22 to 24-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Bacon, Bard, Bate, Berry,
 Carter, Clay. Cockrell, Culberson, Daniel,
 Fairbanks, Foster, Hansbrough. Harris, Heitfeld, Martin, Money, Perkins, Scott, Shoup Taliaferro, Vest-Warren-22