Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-09-17
DEMOCRATS SOLID
FOR PARTY'SN new
TARIFF BILL

party leaders urging their colleagues
on to approval Of the bill, the ranks
closed up against the anti-free wool
and anti-free sugar forces and defeat
ed all amendments 10 the bill as fast
as they came to the vote
Attempts to restore duty on raw
wool and to raise the duty on wool
en- manufactured goods made in sue
cessive amendments by Senators La
| Toilette, Catron and Penrose were de-
feated without the loss Of q party
vote
A last stand by the anti-free sugar
| forces, led by Senator Ransdell Of
Louisiana, Democrat, held the atten-
ton of the senate throughout the
evening, but the votes of Senators
RansdeIl and Thornton long had been
conceded to the Republicans upon the
sugar issue.
The senate will vote finally on the
Democratic tariff bill tomorrow after
noon at o'clock This agreement
was reached tonight at l1:45 o'clock,
when IL became apparent that 1t
would be impossible to carry the plan
to, pass the measure before adjourn
ment.
Among the amendments defeated
was that of Senator. Norris for q
heavy tax on inheritances. This was
beaten, So to IL, the following Repub-
licans joining the Democrats in tyot-
ing against It.:
Senators Brandegee, Catron, Clark
of Wyoming, Colt. Fall, Gallinger,
Jackson, Lippitt, Lodge. Oliver. Pen
rose, Perkins. Root Sherman and
Sutherland
Fight Against Free Wool.
Two attempts by Senator La Fol
lette to secure the adoption of substi-
tutes for the Democratic wool tariff
failed by strict party votes. There
remained the prospect Of final wool
vote when the single item of free
wool was reached in the free list Of
the bill.
Senator Ransdell, in beginning his
fight against free sugar, announced he
opposed free wool also and would Join
in anySattempt to have small duty
put on that product He had voted
against the La Toilette amendment,
which embraced tariff duty on all
classes of wooden goods, but ii was
expected he would support the Repub-
licans in the last fight against the
wool item in the free list
Senator Stone questioned Senator
Ransdelrs right to ignore the agree
ment reached by the Democratic con-
ference to support the BILL Senator
Ransdell insisted he had reserved the
right to vote as he pleased on any
section of the tariff bill.
The La Toilette wool plan came as
La surprise to the Democratic side. In
stead of the expected is per cent duty
on raw wool after January LIST next.
! hts substitute proposed q general cut
of the wool rates, based on 80 per
cent raw wool duty for 1914, a Is per
cent duty for 1915, and q Is per cent
duty after January /, 1916.
When Senator La Toilette conclud-
| ed, Senator Stone, in charge Of the
wool section of the BILL urged Demo
Gratis TO refrain from debate. He said
the subject had been thoroughly Gov
cred before; that Senator La Toilette
had refrainedf from offering his
amendment when the wool issue was
being discussed and that the tariff
lblls passage should not be delayed
by the reopening Of the wool fight.
Ia FolIette's Criticism.
While the high wooden tariff rates
tof the present law came in for much
LOT Senator La FoIlette's criticism, he
Insisted that the Democratic bill did
| not treat the wool raising industry
fairly. He declared the wool duty
was about the only tariff duty from
which the farmer profted; and de-
lmanded an explanation for the Demo-
cratic plan OF taking all the duty on
wool at once, while Louisiana sugar
producers were given three years in
which TO prepare for free sugar.
When the vote came at the night
session the substitute was defeated,
II to %, and Immediately afterward
Senator La Toilette offered another
amendment to fix a straight 10 per
cent duty on wool. This promptly
was voted down, 80 to 9. The Pen
rose wool substitute was defeated
viva vOce.
The debate over Senator Norris in
heritance tax amendment early in
the day brought strong condemnation
from him and from other senator's Of
the alleged laxity with which the tax
alton and revenue laws deal with
large fortunes and large incomes.
Senator Norris took the case OF Vim
cent Astor to illustrate the effect OF
his amendment. The younger Astor.
he said. did nothing to accumulate
the fortunte of $S0,000,00 he received
from his father
Under this proposed amendment, /"
said Senator Norris, the tax Vincent
Aston would pay to the government
would be $43, 799. 500. He would then
have more than s36.0OO,000 tipped in
to his lap, a fortune made by mil
lions of people of the United States.
fortune for the accumulation OF
which he did not sweat a drop. a for
tune accumulated without an effort OF
his hand or brain Such tax would
not be -robbing Mr.. Astor"
Senator Clapp, of Minnesota, declar-
ed the people should prevent the ae-
cumulation of enormous fortunes rath-
er than devise means of curbing them
later