The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-05-28
SUGAR SCHEDULE
CENTER OF INTEREST
Two Amendments, Eliminating
Dutch Standard and Lowering
Refined Sugar, Defeated.
INCOME TAX QUESTION
POSTPONED UNTIL JUNE 10
Senator Bailey of Texas and
New York Newspaper Man in
Physical Contest.

WASHINGTON, May 27.-By the dc
cisive vote of 80 to SO the senate de.
cided today to postpone until June 1O
the further consideration of the income
tax in connection with the tariff,
Consideration Of the sugar schedule
was continued, but after two amend
ments to it were voted on the senate
switched TO a discussion Of possibility
of getting vote on the Bailey income
| tax amendment. Mr.. Bailey forcibly
argued for vote. but did not succeed
in prevailing on Senator Aldrich to con.
cede vote in advance Of the tariff
| schedule
| The two amendments to the sugar
schedule voted upon were those elm
mating the Dutch standard test and
lowering the duty on refined sugar from
100 cents per hundred pounds to
by vote of So to Al. and The
latter by vote of 80 to So On the
first vote IL Republicans voted with tho
| Democrats for the amendments, but for
the second only seven Republicans
broke ranks.
Indication of Conflict.
1t was considered somewhat signif-
cant that the two Louisiana senators,
| v.
senator's representing cane sugar pro-
duclng state, should have been the only
Democrats TO vote with the Republ-
cans on the Dutch standard provision,
and tins was made the more significant
because of the fact that today for the
first fine the possibility of a sharp
conflict between the cane sugar and
beet interests was indicated. Mr.. Cum
MINIS made this the text of a lengthy
speech. The cane sugar men did not
respond.
Mr.. Cummins advocated the striking
out of the Dutch standard test and the
differcntial on refined sugar. This ac-
tion he thought would restrict the profits
of the sugar trust and thus cause that
institution to lose its domination in the
sugar trade. while OH the other hand
the beet sugar makers would be bene-
! Gted.
Senator in Fisticuffs.
Just after the senate ad.lourned today
Senator Bailey of Texas and W. S. Man
ming. a representative of the New York
: Times engaged in fisticutfs in front OF
the senate committee on finance.
There was A reference TO Mr.. Bailey
Characterization of the New York
Times editor as an 'infamous liar, -
and too soon for bystanders to appre.
hcnd what IT was all about. Manning
struck Bailey with his umbrella and
|
mediately separated without injury.
Danger to Beet Sugar.
Mr. Cummns. one of -''progros
sivc' leaders, In Il speech advocated
the wiping out of the differential duty
in the interest of refined sugar.
, Pointing ont the danger 10 the beet
sugar development in the United States
by the continued admission Of free sugar
| from Porto Rico and Hawaii and the
Philippine islands, if the pending bill
should authorize such admission from
, the Philippines. Mr.. Cummins qucs.
toned the wisdom of permitting cane
sugar eventually TO kill the beet sugar
industry. as he said it might. He said
he had no doubt that Cuba would also
in time send her sugar here free of
duty.
Interrupting. Senator Foster sue
gested that he would join the senator
from Iowa in any effort he might make
to keep out free sugar from the Philip
pines.
Mr.. Cummins declared that ample
ability exists TO supply the entire de
mand for sugar in the United States by
the culture of beets, and he believed
the time had come to handle this ques-
ton.
Mr.. Cummins commented at length
upon what he characterized as the ma
tural warfare between cane aud beet
sugar, which, he said, would be shown
in the future as the importations Of free
! sugar increase in volume.
Bounty for Protection.
He commented upon the bounty as a
means of protecting beet sugar growers.
but did not offer an amendment for
such bounty, He opposed the inclusion
of the Dutch standard in the pending
bill at all and said it was in favor "f
the cane industry and against the use "t
beet sugar 81 would rather raise tDe
duty on raw sugar than reduce 1t, re
said.
Senator Root read letter TO the sen
ate showing that while the American
and National sugar companies produced
$4,000 tons of the refined sugar pro
duccd in tho United Statese. other In.
dependent companies IN 1905 produced
S391l2 tons. or 33.l5 per cent of tho
entire product. A vote was then called
FOR on the amendment of Mr.. Bristow,
TO eliminate the Dutch standard In the
testing of sugar. but the author of the
emendmcnt again took the floor and
replied TO n number of senators VINO
had defended the Dutch standard.
After Il few remarks by hm the roll Waa
ordered on the amendment, and II wac
dcfeatcd Senators Beveridge, Brlstow,
Brown Clapp, Crawford, CummlDs, Dol,
liver. johnson. Jones, LA Toilette ana
Nelson. Republicans, voted with inc
Democrats in the affirmative oehatot
Burkctt voted no.
There was great confusion during the
call of the roll
4 second amendment by Mr. Brls.
fo7y. changing the 1ifferential rate OF
duty on sugar, was then reported,
Present Duty Retained.
The amendment was defeated by
vote of 30 to 81, the present rate OF l.9U
on refined sugar being retained,
Mr.. Bailey Immediately seized upon
this opportunity to offer his income tax
amendment, and it was read. much to
the amusement of the senate, for 1T was
Continued on PAGE Two.