The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-13
THE OPINION OF SENATOR'S
MT. Allison of Iowa Cites
 PrecedentS.
MT. Teller Declares That Sugar Trust Will Be the Beneficiary If the Reciprocity Agree
 ment is Ratified.

Washington, March 12.-The executive session of the Senate today was taken up largely with the details of the agree ment to vote upon the Panama Canal treaty, and after the agreement was reached, Senator Morgan did not mani- rest any disposition to proceed with the discussion of that treaty.
 senator Cullom thereupon asked the Senate to take up the Cuban treaty. which he had just reported from the Com mittee on Foreign Relations but Senator Foster of Louisiana objected, saying his colleague, Senator McEnery, who desired 10 speak on the treaty, was absent This opJection had the effect of preventing formal discussion of the treaty, as such put there was more or less discussion of the enect Of m amendment to require the approval of the treaty by the House.
 Senator Foster asked when, under that amendment. the treaty would take effect, and several Republican Senators made re- ply The general opinion was that 1t would not become effective until after legislation by bill or joint resolution. in which both houses of Congress should concur.
 Action by House Needed.
 Among the Senators who expressed the opinion that the treaty would not become effective until approved by both houses of Congress were Senators Allison, Piatt (Conn.). Teller. and Bacon. These Sena- tors also contended that the action of the House on reciprocity treaties is necessary in order to conform the Constitution of the United States
 Senator Allison. who has always taken a leading part in tariff and finncial leg islation, was quite emphatic in his expres- sion of this view, and cited the Senate to a at.av r4 .no&s., ae A which the cooperation of the two houses of Congress had been secured.
 After concluding his remarks on the effect of the new amendment, Senator Tei- Ter discussed the merits of the treaty in detail, contending that 1t was a direct thrust at the sugar inndustry of the Unit ed States and that It's effect would be entirely in the interest of the Sugar Trust, which he claimed would be benefit ed to the extent of no less than $6.000000 annually by the reduction of duties on raw sugar. He also declared the amend ment recommended by the Committee on Foreign Relations. which provides that reduction on Cuban sugar during the life of the treaty shall not be more than 20 per cent and that during this time there shall be no reduction on sugar imported from any other foreign country, had been inserted merely for the purpose of get ting the votes of Senators from Sugar producing States.
 Can Be Repealed.
 He asserted that 1t could have no pos sible effect in binding the government of the United States. if it's Congress should decree otherwise. In other words. he said. this amendment could be repealed just as any statute might be by Congress.
 Senators Platt (Conn) and Dietrich (Neb) replied to MT. Teller.
 MT. Platt denied that the Sugar Trust would reap the benefit of the reduction proposed by the treaty.
 Senator Deitrich defended the amend ment providing against further reduce tions of the duty on sugar. The moral effect of the inclusion of this provision in the treaty, he said. would be very great. He said that he and some of the other beet sugar Senators had exerted their influence to have the amendment adopted by the committee, and his confidence in the provision was such that its accept ance or non-acceptance would determine his final vote on the ratification of the treaty. Without the amendment he was opposed to the treaty; with 1t he was for the treaty.