Omaha daily bee., 1909-05-28
to Strike Out Dutch
Standard to Lower Duty Lost.
BROWN AND BURKETT DIVIDE
Former Votes with Democrats on the
Standard Amendment.
BEET VERSUS CANE SUGAR
Attitude of Northern and Southern
Senators Indicate First nj
vision Among These
Interests.

WASHINGTON. May 27.-By the decisive
vote of 50 to SO the senate decided today TO
postpone until June 10 the further consid-
GRAFTON OF the income tax question In con-
necton with the tariff
Consideration of the sugar schedule was
continued, but after two amendments TO IL
were voted on the senate switched off to
a discussion of the possibility OF getting
vote on the Bailey income tax amendment.
Mr.. Bailey presented his argument for a
vote in his usual forcible manner but did
not succeed in prevailing on Senator Al
drich TO concede a vote in advance of the
tariff schedule. Mr.. Aldrich declared that
he would not agree to a vote on the in
come tax in advance OF the schedules as
long he in charge OF the bill
The two amendments to the sugar sched-
ue on which votes were taken were those
eliminating the Dutch standard test from
the tariff schedule and lowering the duty
on refined sugar from l.s cents per pound
to 1.S2ls cents per pound. Both were de-
feated. the former by a vote Of IS TO a and
the latter by vote of 30 to So on the first
vote eleven republicans voted with the
democrats for the amendment, but on the
second only five republicans broke ranks.
Sugar Interests Divide.
II was considered somewhat significant
that the two Louisiana senator's. Foster
and McEnery. the only senators represent
ing a cane sugar producing state, should
have been the only democrats 20 vote with
the republicans on the standard providing
and this was made the more significant be-
cause Of the fact that today for the first
time the possibility OF a sharp conflict pc
tween the cane sugar and beet sugar In
terests was indicated.
Mr. Cummins made this the text OF
somewhat lengthy and interesting speech.
The cane sugar men did not. however.
make response to this. In the main the
arugment advocated the striking out Of
the duties standard test and the pro-
vision in the sugar schedulueu for diff
ferential on refined sugar. This action
he thought would restrain the profits of
| the sugar trust and thus cause that IN
stitution to lose its domination IN the sugar
trade. while on the other hand the beet
sugar makers would be benefited.
Declaring he did not take issue with the
Louisiana senators who had voiced the
sentiments of their constituents in favor
of protection for their sugar interests
Senator owen made plea for liberality
among partisans toward those who did
he undertook to show that revenue duties
contained an incidental element OF pro-
lection and he justified senator's in wish
ing to see such incidental protection made
a benefit To all sections Of the country.
At the conclusion OF Mr.. owens remarks
a vote was called for on the amendment
Of Mr. Rristow to eliminate the Dutch
standard in the testing Of sugar, but the
author of the amendment again took the
floor and replied to a number Of senator's
who had defended the Dutch standard.
After few remarks by him the roll was
ordered on the amendment and It was
defeated. Senators Beverdge. Brown,
Bristow Crawford, Cummins. Dolliver.
Clapp, Jones La Toilette and Nelson, re-
publican voted with the democrats in the
affirmative. Senator Burkett noted no.
There was great confusion during the
call Of the roll. second amendment by
Mr Bristow, changing the differential rate
Of duty on sugar, was then reported
The amendment was defeated by a vote
OF 80 to 53 the present rate Of 100 on re-
fined sugar being retained
Income Tax Causes Stir.
Mr. Bailey Immediately seized upon this
opportunity to offer his income tax amend
ment and II was read, much TO the amuse-
ment of the senate, for IL was realized
that the republican leaders had no in
tention OF permitting a vote at this time.
While the reading OF the amendment was
proceediag there were many hurried con-
ferences on the flor. Mr.. Cummins, su-
thor Of an income TAX amendment, talked
with Senators Borah, Dixon, Beveridge
and other supporters of his plan. Mr.. Hale
I T. TlasI nd Ian
the latter intended to demand that vote
be taken now or that 8 time be fixed for
the taking Of a vote
Mr. Aldrich moved that consideration of
the Bailey amendment be postponed until
June 10 This motion provoked Mr.. Bailey
TO take the floor.
The senator from Rhode Island. Mr..
Bailey said, had at times shown some inn
patience for a vote on his tariff bill and
vet he added he was not willing 10 vote
on the most important amendment that
would be Offered TO the bill. The orderly
manner OF considering this measure, said
Mr.. Bailey would be 10 first dispose OF
this amendment because the adoption OF
an income tax would permit cutting down
the amount to be raised from custom
duties By $50 900 OOO which might be raised
upon incomes.
Stating that he hoped everyone favorng
an income tax would 90 on record on that
policy. Mr.. Cummins declared his intention
to vote for the Bailey amendment He
mad no fear that even with the income tax
there would be too much revenue.
Mr.. Aldrich declined 20 entertain any
proposition for an arrangement 10 vote in
any particular way upon the income tax
amendment. He agreed 10 a suggestion by
Mr.. Cummins that the income tax amend
ments should be disposed OF Immediately
upon the disposition Of the tariff schedules,
He further explained that he had no dis
position TO prevent consideration OF such
amendments.
Mr.. Bailey, fearing that under this argu
ment he could not get a direct vote on
his amendment declined TO accept H. An
extended discussion followed concerning