12TH, BANK CAPITAL AND DEPOSITS.

The tax on the capital and deposits of all banks, private, state and national, was repealed by act of March 3, 1883. The amount of revenue collected on the capital and deposits of banks and bankers other than national banks during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1882, the last full year the tax was in force before its repeal was $5,249,172.70, and of national banks $5,959,702.37, making a total of $11,208,875.07. The above statement includes all classes of internal taxes that have been entirely abolished and shows the amount of revenue derived from them during the last entire fiscal year that those taxes were in force.

SUGAR DUTIES.

Action of Republican Senators Increasing Duties in Favor of the Trust.

The Republican members of Congress and the Republican press have had much to say against the Democratic party and especially the Democratic Senators, for having given undue protection to the refining industry, commonly known as the 66 sugar trust."

These accusations appear supremely hypocritical in the face of the fact that this gigantic monopoly grew up under the protecting care of the Republican party.

That the protection given to the sugar refiners, over and above the 40 per cent ad valorem on raw and refined, is more than is necessary, is probably true; but the question is not how much should have been given the "trust" but how much could be taken away from it. The Republican party has always been the staunch friend of "trusts" and at all times, when in power, favored the "sugar trust." That their advocacy of free sugar in the Senate, during the consideration of the tariff bill, was a sham, and only done for the purpose of creating a division in the ranks of the Democratic members, in the endeavor to defeat all the tariff 1 gislation and thereby save the sugar and all the other great trusts from harm, was apparent from the fact that when a separate bill, abolishing the differential duty on refined sugar, was tendered to them, they either voted against it consideration or refrained from voting, thereby breaking a quorum. Under the act of 1883, a Republican measure, the duty on sugar under No. 13, Dutch standard in color, was 2 cents a pound; over No. 13 and not above No. 16, 2 cents per pound; above No. 16, and not above No. 20, 3 cents per pound, and above No. 20, 3 cents per pound. The sugar refiners under this act had a protection of 13 cents per pound against sugars below No. 13; of a cent a pound against sugars between Nos. 13 and 16, and cent a pound against all below No. 20, Dutch standard.

The McKinley bill, as originally drafted, provided for an ad valorem duty of 35 per cent on raw and 40 per cent on refined. At the dictation of the "Trust" raws were made free and a specific duty of 4-10 of a cent per pound placed on refined, and a bounty of 2 cents per pound provided for the sugar planters.

When the bill reached the Senate the agents of the "Trust" were again on hand and the Finance Committee of the Senate, a majority of whom were Republicans, were induced to report an amendment, increa-ing the -pecific rate of 4-10 on sugars above No. 16, Dutch standard, to 6-10 of a cent per pound.

Upon the adoption of this amendment the yeas and nays were as follows:

YEAS 29.-Aldrich, Allen, Butler, Cameron, Casey, Chandler, Dawes, Dixon, Dolph, Eustis, Evarts, Frye, Gibson, Hale, Hawley, Hoar, McMillan, Manderson, Paddock, Pasco, Platt, Plumb, Quay, Reagan, Sawyer, Stewart, Stockbridge, Teller, Washburn.

NAYS 23.-Allison, Barbour, Bate, Berry, Blackburn, Carlisle, Cockrell, Colquitt,

Cullom, Edmunds, Faulkner, Gorman, Mitchell, Morgan, Pugh, Ransom, Sherman, Spooner, Vance, Vest, Walthall, Wilson of Iowa, Wilson of Má.

ABSENT 32.-Blair, Blodgett, Brown, Call, Coke, Daniel, Davis, Farwell, George, Gray, Hampton, Harris, Hearst, Higgins, Hiscock, Ingalls, Jones of Arkansas, Jones of Nevada, Kenna, McPherson, Moody, Morrill, Payne, Pettigrew, Pierce, Powers, Sanders, Squire, Sanford, Turpie, Voorhees, Wolcott.

Of the yeas, five, Butler, Eustis, Gibson, Pasco, and Reagan were Democrats and the balance 24 Republicans; and of the nays one, Allison, was a Republican, and the balance 22, were Democrats.

The increase of 1-5 of a cent per pound over the rate proposed in the McKinley bill was made upon the recommendation of a Republican committee and adopted by Republican votes.

After the adoption of this amendment, Senator Quay offered the following amendment:

All sugars above No. 13, Dutch standard in color, shall be classified by the Dutch standard of color, and shall pay duty as follows, namely: All sugars above No. 13 and not above No. 16, Dutch standard of color, three-tenths of I cent per pound. All sugars above No. 16 and not above No. 20, Dutch standard in color, shall pay a duty of six-tenths of 1 cent per pound. All sugars above No. 20, Dutch standard in color, shall pay a duty of eight-tenths of 1 cent per pound: Provided, That if an export duty shall hereafter be laid upon sugar or molasses by any country from whence the same may be imported, such sugar or molasses so imported shall be subject to duty as provided by law prior to the passage of this act.

66

This amendment proposed an increase on sugars between Nos. 13 and 16, of 3-10, and in sugars above No. 20, Dutch standard, of 4-10 of 1 cent per pound. Senator Manderson proposed an amendment to the amendment, striking out one cent," and inserting in lieu thereof "eight-tenths of a cent," and upon this proposition said:

Now, Mr. President, it seems to me that there is abundant reason in these_suggestions for establishing the distinction suggested by the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania. That amendment, making this graded rate of duty on all sugars above No. 13, will have not only the effect of encouraging this sugar industry, but, as I have suggested, it permits manufacturers of sugar from factories which they expect to establish in this country to refine their own products without shipping to the large refiners of sugar in the East. I believe the duty of 1 per cent per pound, as proposed by the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, is probably higher than we need to go. I think that eight tenths of a cent per pound will amply reach every element of protection, and I hope that amendment may be made.

In opposition to the amendment of Senator Quay and the amendment to the same by Senator Manderson, Senator Gorman said:

Mr Gorman. Mr. President, this amendment is not only an increase on the bill as it came to this body from the other House, but the Senate has already made a very large increase in favor of the interest of refining by the change from 16 and 13, Dutch standard, and from four-tenths to six-tenths of a cent per pound on all sugars above No. 16. It is now proposed by this amendment to o beyond even the recommendations of the Committee on Finance and to impose this duty upon all sugars above No. 20, which would simply give the sugar refiners an absolute monopoly of all the refined article and would add to their profit, in my judgment, from the best information I can g t, beyond the point where the present law exists, and would simply be an imposition upon the people of the country. As the bill is amended it is doubtful whether the people will get any very considerable benefit from it.

Senator Vest also vigorously opposed the amendment. He said:

Mr. Vest. Mr. President, practically this amendment amounts to very little. I shall vote against it, as I have voted against the increase from four to six-tenths of a cent above No. 16, and imposing a duty of three-tenths of a cent between No. 13 and No. 16. The refiners have now all they want. The votes that have been taken here to-day have put into the pockets of the refiners millions upon millions of dollars.

The first report that was made by the McKinley committee in the House put the grade at No. 16 in color under the Dutch standard. When the Mills bill was considered in the House the first report was in favor of No. 16 and in behalf of the consumers of the country. Then, by some sort of manipulation, it was reduced to No. 13, which has been the standard that the refiners have demanded all the time. The very same thing which was made the subject of attack against the Democratic committee in 1888 has occurred now in the House of Representatives, and again in the Senate. The refiners have triumphed again, and have put this down to No. 13, Dutch standard. There has never been any test as to sugars below No. 13, because they must all be refined, and that is the sugar which is the raw material to the refiners. But the test has always been, as every Senator who knows anything about the tariff is well aware, upon the grades between 13 and 16.

There are two grades between 13 and 16 which can be used when imported into this country without being refined. They are the light beet sugars that come from Germany and a dark sugar which is used largely in the northwest. Over these two grades the battle has raged all the time, the refiners always claiming that the standard should be down to No. 13 in color, whilst the friends of the consumers of the country, as I regard the question, have insisted upon No. 16.

By the vote here to-day to put three-tenths of a cent a pound duty upon the grades between 13 and 16, and then above 16, we have increased the duty in the bill as it came from the House from four-tenths to six-tenths of a cent, which makes it absolutely exclusive. So the refiners, as this blll now stands, without voting upon the present amendment, get their raw material free when it is under No. 13, get a duty which amounts almost to exclusion upon the two grades between 13 and 16, and get an absolutely exclusive duty on all grades above 16. Now, the Senator from Pennsylvania simply wants to make

Assurance double sure,

And take a bond of fate

By putting all above 20 at $1. Mr. President, since the Senate has put the rate at three-tenths of a cent between 13 and 16 and six-tenths of a cent above No. 16, the refiners have secured all they want, and it is a matter of indifference to me whether or not you add one more outrage, in my judgment, and put it at 1 cent under the amendment. But in any event I shall vote against it, as I have voted against all the rest of this legislation.

Upon the conclusion of Senator Vest's remarks, the demand for the yeas and nays was withdrawn and the amendments rejected.

ANTI-TRUST PROVISIONS.

Sections of the New Tariff Law Against Trusts, Combinations and Companies.

Sec. 73. That every combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contra t is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal, and void, when the same is made by or between two or more persons or corporations either of whom is engaged in importing any article from any foreign country into the United States, and when such combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is intended to operate in restraint of lawful trade, or free competition in lawful trade or commerce, or to increase the market price in any part of the United States of any article or articles imported or intended to be import d into the United States, or of any manufacture into which such imported article enters or is intended to enter. Every person who is or shall hereafter be engaged in the importation of goods or any commodity from any foreign country in violation of this section of this act, or who shall combine or conspire with another to violate the same, is guilty of a nisdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof in any court of the United States, such person shall be fined in a sum not less than one hundred dollars and not exceeding five thousand dollars, and shall be further punished by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for a term not less than th ee months nor exceeding twelve months. Sec. 74. That the several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section seventy-three of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney-General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent a d restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petitions setting forth the case and praying that such violations shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of he case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the p emises.

Sec. 75. That whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under the seventy-fourth section of this act may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.

Sec. 76. That any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section seventy-three of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to or from a Territory, or the District of Columbia, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.

Sec. 77. That any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover three-fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.