New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-01-17
DETAILS OF THE FIGHT.
Opponents Failed to Make Any
important Amendments.

Washington. jan 1s-When the House met to-
day Mr.. steenerson, of Minnesota. obtained the
floor on a question Of personal privilege. He had
read in Boston paper an article quoting president
Roosevelt as saying to Mr. Steenerson on last Sat
urdav that if he had known the latter was opposed
m the Philippine Tariff and Statehood bills he
should not have appointed his man as receiver or
the General Land Office at Crookston Mimi
Mr. Steenersdn first commented that II IT were
true the President used the language attributed
to him it was serious thing. BUT ne cohuhueu'
"the article is false-no such language was ever
used by the President. nor was anything ever sdlo
by him in my hearing that could Dc suscePuo4e
of anv such meaning. Applause greeted this state
ment. -,
NJ stesnerson said the whole thing was not only
false but was ridiculous. because he did not mold
the views on the bills as stated He ADDED thac
his interview with the President was ehurelS
nIessant He regarded 1t as confidential but au-
tbortzed the President. far as he was concerned
IN make public much OF II aS the fresldehU
might remember
On motion of Mr.. SuIzer. of New-York. the
14ouse agreed to a resolution asking the Secretary
of state to transmit TO the House all the corre-
spondence and dispatches between this government
and the Austro- Hungarian government concerning
+h arrest detention and fine Of Marcus Braun,
-, inornIgrant inspector of the United States.
Taking up the Philippine bill for amendment MI.
Payne obtained the adoption OF the committee
arnendment when William Alden Smith sought
roooenition for twenty-five minutes On Mr.. Paynes
Itoo+ton Mr. Smith retorted: why, sir, in nv
1ll.
+rye1ve years service in this House I have not
occnpied the floor long as the gentleman held II
IN opening debate his BILL
1-uentv-fve minutes was given to Mr. smith on
,ba statement that he did not altogether hold the
;rvs of the opponents of the bill. Mr.. Smith con-
trded that the bill would not only not assist the
tbIinnines but would be detrimental TO them he
rrIatned this by saying that Hong Kong was the
r,~incipal market for Philippine sugar. and that by
d,cinp the duty this market would be lost by
~otion of the Brussels convention, excluding
HPunty fed sugars from European countries OF theIr
poulroSS poulnSSancies Mr.. Smith offered amendment
ueIto the duty on sugar so per cent OF the Dingley
sSS,etaed OF 25 per He maintained that
e so nor cent tariff even % per cent, Wouo nor
the oo ~ the objection of of % per cent so
be open lrat9tning the Hong Kong market was con-
cerned.
THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION.
,, royre saw nothing in Mr.. Smiths state
WI. w tIe maintained there would be no discrmina-
,io against philippine sugar because Of the Brus-
W., Convention and said that he had telegram
80 Mr. Wilson, of Brussels, which said so far
- brussels convention concerned the
+tor 90 of the Philippine sugar tariff was definite
w attIed Mr. Smith obtained the reading OF the
,a,, bv unanimous consent 1t said:
r,orr,orent sugar commission sitting at Brussels
ITirassa5 com pensating duty sugars imported
s, suiP pbiIjnnne Islands until new examination OF
tit-,,na regulations is made in conjunction with
IN felgisaton OF the United States or America.
Iwba and Porto Rico. Question believed TO be
6eantteiv settled regards Philippine sugar.
NJ smith remarked that this meant any tariff