The Washington times., 1902-04-19

| the treaty in disturbing what he called
| the equilibrium OF the duty on raw and
! refined sugars. The dignity of the House,
| he said, in conclusion, would be respected
| by the public only in so far as the House
| itself observed its own rules and main
| tanned its organization. To pass bill or
resolution. simply because we wanted to
| have ii so. in his opinion, was to enter
upon a course that would end in chaos
! confusion, and parliamentary revolution.
Mr.. DeArmond's Views.
| Mr.. De Almond (Dem, MOI said the
/ question, after ALL was not so much
whether a certain ruling had been made
or would be made, or whether or not there
! was a rule at all, as whether or not the
House would vote for the people or for
the Sugar Trust. He advised the Chair
that the easiest way out of the matter for
| him was to unload the question onto the
committee for it's decision.
| Mr.. Lacey (Rep., Iowa. and Mr.. Ohm
| sted rep, Pa.) argued against the
amendment.
Mr.. Morris, its author gave the reasons
why he had introduced il. Chiefly and
briefly. this was that the proposed reduc-
tion of the duty did disturb the equilibri-
um between raw and refined sugars, and
the House should restore that equilibrium.
MIR. Grow had said the bill did not con-
tain the word sugar; that was true said
Mr.. Morris, but there was sugar all over
it.
Mr.. Sherman, the chairman of the Com
mittee of the Whole. in a somewhat ex-
tensive decision, sustained the point of
order as it was expected that he would
do.
Mr.. Tawney promptly appealed from the
decision. The vote vas taken by tellers.
Speaker Henderson was the first to pass
between the tellers, Messrs. Payne and
Tawney One hundred and thirty Repub-
licans voted to sustain the chairman.
Then the Democrats stood back and
allowed the insurgents" to pass between
the tellers; thirty-six of them voted mo-"
while the Democrats applauded vigorous
ly.
Then the minority passed between the
tellers, every man of them voting against
the decision of the Chair. The ''insur-
gents" stood at the end of the center
aisle, and in return loudly applauded the
Democrats.
A Complete Victory.
The result was 1870 for sustaining the
Chair and III against it. The victory
was complete and the House leaders were
greatly humiliated.
Mr.. Payne's Indignation was manifested
when he arose to speak in opposition to
the amendment which had, by vote
against the Chair, been decided to be in
order.
I'VE have heard a great deal about
party consistency" he began, with much
anger in his voice. There were cries of
regular order, but he was allowed to pro-
ceed.
He said he had been scoffed at when he
had said that he was a friend of the
beet sugar industry. He now proposed
to show that friendship by voting against
the amendment. He appealed TO the Re-
publicans to oppose taking off the diff
ferential and thus protect the beet sugar
industry.
Mr. Weeks (Rep., Mich.) asked if that
appeal didn't come a little late in the
hour of the contest and the laughter that
followed added to Mr.. Payne's chagrin.
Mr.. Mcclellan offered an amendment
the Intent OF which was not only TO do
away with the differential but generally
to reduce 20 per cent the Dingley duties
on sugar. and also one TO take off the
time limit of its operation. These were
lost
The Morris amendment was then car