The daily morning journal and courier., 1903-03-13
CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY
NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL AP- PROVED BY BOTH HOUSES.
Opinion of Senators Expressed in the Senate eYesterday-Teiier Declares the Treaty a Direct Thrust at tho Sugar Industry of the United States and tn the Interests of the Sugar Trust.

 Washington, March 12-The senate to-day discussed the Cuban reciprocity treaty. An opinion seemed general that the convention would not became effec- tive until approved by both houses of congress. Among the sena tors who sup ported this view were Senators Allison, Platt of Connecticut, Teller and Bacon. These senators also eontended that the action of the house on reciprocity treat ies is necessary in order to conform to
 the constitution of the United States.
 Senator Allison, who always has taken
 leading part in tariff and financial
 legislation, was quite emphatic in his
 expression os this view and cited the
 senate to a number of reciprocity treat l ies in all of which the cooperation of
 the two houses of congress had been se-
 cured.
 1 Senator Teller discussed the merits of
 the treaty in detail, contending that it
 was direct thrust at the sugar indus | try of the United States and that it's eff | feet would be entirely in the interest of
 the Sugar Trust, which he claimed
 would be benefited to the extent of no
 less than $6,000,000 annually by the re-
 duction of duties on raw sugar. He also
 discussed at some length the amend
 ment recommended by the committee
 on foreign relations which provides that the reduction on Cuban sugar during 1 the life of the treaty shall not be more l than 20 per cent. and that during this 1 time there shall be no reduction on
 sugar imported from any other foreign
 country. He ridiculed this amendment declaring that it had been inserted
 merely for the purpose of catching the
 votes of senators from sugar producing | states. He asserted that it could have
 no possible effect in binding the gov- | ernnent of the United States if it's con- gress should decree otherwise. In other | words, he said, this enactment could be
 repealed just as any statute might be i by congress.
 | Senators Platt of Connecticut and | Dietrich of Nebraska replied to MT.
 Teller. MT. Platt denied that the Sugar
 Trust would reap the benefit of the re-
 duction proposed by the treaty. He
 said at this time he would not go into
 the question, but that he hoped at lat
 CT day to be able to cite facts which
 would convince the senate that the con- 1 tention was unfounded.
 l Senator Dietrich defended the amend
 ment providing against further reduc- tions of the duty on sugar. He admitted that the provision could be repealed in the future, but he said that this was not likely to happen. The moral effect of the inclusion of this provision in the l treaty, he said, would be very great. He said that he and some of the other beet sugar senators had exerted their influ-
 ence to have the amendment adopted by the committee and his confidence in the provision was such that it's accept ance or non-acceptance would deter mine his attitude on the final vote on the ratification of the treaty Without the amendment he was opposed to the treaty; with it he was for the treaty.