People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 January 1894 — SUGAR TO BE FREE. [ARTICLE]

SUGAR TO BE FREE.

The Home Totes to Place It on tho Fro# List—The Bounty Rejected. Washington, Jan. 24. —Pursuant to the special order adopted in the bouse last Friday the sugar schedule was on Monday taken up. Mr. Mcßae (dem., Ark.) presented his amendment abolishing the bounty on sugar and putting sugar on the free list Mr. Meiklejobn (rep.. Neb.) offered an amendment for the substi ution of the existing law for the sugar clause of the Wilson bill. Mr. Harter (dem., O.) offered a substitute providing that the bounty on sugar should cease directly on the passage of the Wilson bill; that sugar sweepings, cane juice, molasses, etc., should be taxed one cent per pound, and that when imported from a country which gives a bounty on the exportation of sugar a tariff tax be imposed in this country equivalent to the bounty. Mr. Gear (rep., la.),who was received with prolonged applause, offered an amendment providing that the decrease in the bounty on sugar should begin July 1, 1898, instead of 1895. Mr. Gear advocated the bestowal of bounties, which he said had always been the policy of the government. Brief speeches were made on both sides of the pending propositions by the following members; Bryan (dem, Neb.), Dingley (rep., Me), Tarsney (dem., Mo.), Mercer (rep., Neb.), Washington (dem , Tenn ). Giilet (rep. Mass.), Snodgrass (deal., Tain), Hurler (dem., O), Bowers (rep., Cak), Hooker (dem., Miss.), Warner (dem., N. Y.), Simpson (pop. : Kan.), Blanchard (dem., La.), Haintr (rep. , Neb.), Boatner (dem., La.) and Payne (rep., N. Y.). Mr. Wilson (dem., W. Va.) then spoke briefly against any change in the tariff bill as prepared by the committee on ways and means. The amendments and substitutes presented to the sugar schedule were then read prior to taking the vote upon them. The first amendment was the one offered by Mr. Mcßae suspending the bounty on sugar and putting sugar on the free list To this amendment Mr. Meiklejohn (rep., Neb.) offered an amendment substituting the provisions of the existing law. Mr. Harter (dem., O.) offered a substitute abolishing the bounty on sugar and putting a discriminating tax on all sugars, raw or refined. Mr. Price (dem., La.) offered an amendment to the substitute providing for a tariff tax on sugar. Mr, Meiklejohn’s amendment was first voted on and was defeated—yeas 82, nays 158. Among those who voted for this amendment were the following democrats: Messrs. Davey, Robertson, Meyer, Price and Blanchard, all of Louisiana. Mr. Price’s amendment was also defeated—yeas, 19; nays, 149. The following democrats voted for the amendment: Messrs. Boatner, Price, Blanchard, Black (Ill.), Bailey (Tex.), Davis and Meyer. The Harter amendment was lost on a viva voce vote. The vote was then taken on the McRae amendment, and it was agreed to on a vote by tellers by: Yeas, 135; nays, 69. Among those who voted for the amendment were the following republicans: Messrs. Grosvenor, Dalzell, Ellis, Moon, Keifer, McCall, Cannon, Wilson (Wash.), Lacey, Hopkins, Haugen, McDowell, Settle, Scranton, Marsh, Doolittle and Funk.

Mr. Robertson (dem., La.) offered an amendment providing for a tariff tax on sugar. To this amendment Mr. Warner (dem., N. Y.) offered an amendment putting refined sugar on the free list Mr. Breckinridge (dem.. Ky.) offered a substitute providing for a duty of one cent per pound on molasses, sirups and all raw products of cane juice, beet juice, tank bottoms, sugar sweepings, etc. Mr. Warner’s amendment was first voted on and was agreed to by a vote of 137 in the affirmative to 52 in the negative—nearly all republicans voting in the affirmative. The Breckinridge amendment was then lost by a vote of 57 to 144. The committee then rose but immediately resumed its sittings in the hope that the Robertson amendment might be passed, but the committee could not agree and at 5:40 it again rose.