point for estimating the differential is 100 degrees raw and 100 degrees refined sugar-where, as I have already stated, this differential is 122 cents per hundred pounds, or one-eighth of 1 cent per pound, yet in all tariff bills this differential necessarily increases as sugars of a less polariscopic test are selected, for the reason that the percentage of hard sugar obtainable in the process of refining diminishes and the percentage of less valuable soft sugars and cost of refining increases faster than the polariscopic test goes down. But this increase of differential is adjusted to the basis of 122 cents per hundred fixed for sugars of 100 degrees test, so that in effect the differential is equal to only the 122 cents on such basis.

"Thus, according to the official figures of the Treasury Department, the differential between the duty on refined and the duty on 107.47 pounds raw sugars of 96 degrees test required by the Treasury drawback regulations to make 100 pounds refined, is, under the present Wilson tariff, 19.82, taking the average of 96-degree sugar (2.12), or 21.02 if St. Croix 96-degree sugar (valued at 2.10) is taken as the basis, and 13.91 under the proposed schedule. This compares with German fine; but compared with Dutch refined, which is the only sugar imported anywhere near the equal of American refined (Dutch costing 13 cents per hundred pounds more than German fine), the differential would be 25.2 per hundred under the present tariff and only 13.91 under the proposed tariff.

"It will be seen that the computations vary under the tariff of 1894 according to the kind of raw sugar and refined sugar selected, because the duties under the present law are ad valorem, while under the proposed schedule they are fixed.

"But I started to make the comparison on the basis of 92-degree sugar, which gives a larger differential because of the increased labor of refining and the lower proportionate yield of hard sugars.

"The average dutiable value of St. Croix 92-degree sugar, which is the medium sugar of 92 degrees, was 1.85 in the first four months of the present year. The duty (40 per cent) on 1 pound of this sugar is, therefore, .74, and the duty on 114.94 pounds of such sugar required, according to the Treasury drawback regulations, to make 100 pounds refined, is therefore 85 cents.

“Dutch refined sugar, the quality which comes near our American refined, was valued at 2.60 in the same period, and German fine, which sells for nearly half a cent less in our markets than our refined because of its inferior quality, was valued at 2.47. The duty (40 per cent plus 122 cents) on 100 pounds Dutch refined under the present tariff is, therefore, $1.162, and on 100 pounds German fine $1.113. Deducting 85 cents, and the differential under the present tariff as against Dutch refined sugar is 32 cents per

hundred pounds, and against German fine 26.24 cents; or if the average value of all 96-degree sugar (1.95) imported is taken as the basis, then each differential is reduced a little over five-tenths of 1 cent.

"Inasmuch as the duty on 92-degree sugar in the proposed tariff is 1.54% per pound, or $1.77% on the 114.94 pounds of 92-degree sugar required to make 100 pounds refined, and the duty on both Dutch and German refined $1.95, the differential in the proposed tariff is not quite 172 cents on both kinds of refined, which is more than 40 per cent less than the differential under the present or any prior tariff-a fact which our friends on the other side who support the tariff of 1894, and who are denouncing, for partisan purposes, the proposed differential on refined sugar as a surrender to the sugar trust (which refines 70 per cent of our product as against 30 per cent by independent refiners), should keep in mind as a check on their new-born zeal against trusts. Let me repeat at every point the differential on refined sugar is from 25 to 50 per cent less than the differential given by the tariff of 1894.

"I will print as an appendix to my speech the official comparison made by Hon. George G. Tichenor, of the United States Board of Appraisers, which puts this point of controversy beyond question.

"It should be borne in mind that the general increase of duty on sugar made in the proposed tariff has been made not only to increase the revenue, but also to further encourage the production of beet sugar in this country and furnish a new crop for our farmers, who are being sorely pressed as to our large wheat surplus by Russian and South American competition. I believe that the time has come when the production of our own sugar from the beet ought to be and can be successfully entered upon, and thus the seventy-five millions-soon to be one hundred millions-sent abroad for the purchase of our sugar ultimately distributed here to our own farmers."

Sugar differential under Wilson tariff and Dingley tariff.*
[Prepared by Hon. George E. Tichenor, Board of United States Appraisers.]

Average

AMERICAN SUGAR-BEET CULTURE PRONOUNCED A SUCCESS IN GERMANY.

[Translation of an article from the Leipsic Tageblatt of February 9, 1898.] American journals announce that the beet-sugar craze prevails throughout the counties of northern and middle Indiana to a degree that recalls to mind the cooperative creamery and milkstation fever which raged there several years ago. Numerous and largely attended meetings of farmers and capitalists have been held to discuss and agree upon plans for mutual operation. The former are to raise beets; the latter are to manufacture them into sugar. So great is the excitement, that many already cherish the dream of seeing Indiana become the center of the American beet-sugar industry.

Last spring, well-chosen and prepared beet fields in many localities were planted with beet seeds of the finest quality, which the Department of Agriculture had obtained from Europe and distributed free of cost to the farmers. In the autumn the agricultural experiment station understook the task of carefully testing the beets which had been so produced. In Stark County, three-eighths of an acre yielded grown and topped beets at the rate of 14 tons

*Based on St. Croix raw sugar, which represents about the medium raw sugars imported in the first four months of the present year, and on German fine refiued sugar, whose entered value was 2.47. Duty on 100 pounds German fine under Wilson tariff (40 per cent plus 12 cents). $1.113; under proposed tariff, $1.95. Dutch refined sugar was valued at 2.6, and therefore the differential as against this refined sugar would be 5.2 cents higher per hundred pounds under the Wilson tariff than is stated above, and would be the same as stated under the proposed tariff. Granulated or hard sugars can not be made of sugars below 87 degrees, and therefore the differential on the low grades is immaterial.

to the acre. A beet 12.6 ounces in weight was analyzed at the experiment station and yielded 22.9 per cent of sugar, with a coefficient of 8.45. This specimen was grown from seed derived from Klein Wanzleben (a commune near Magdeburg, in Prussian Saxony). In the same way, several hundred specimen bects from different sections of the State were analyzed, and all give promise of yielding not less than 12.6 per cent of sugar from juice of 80° purity. Many specimens exceeded this yield by from 2 to 8 per cent.

What is here related of Indiana, is also true of other States, particularly California, which is especially adapted to sugar-beet culture. America imports yearly 2,000,000 tons of sugar, valued at 400,000,000 marks ($95,200,000), from foreign countries, especially from Germany, and has for years been considering ways and means to supply this demand with home-grown sugar. Such a result can not be reached in a day, but the Secretary of Agriculture has for years aided and encouraged beet cultivation by all possible means. At present, they are stimulated and encouraged in such efforts, which have so serious a meaning for us, by the foolish action of the German Agricultural Bund, which has inspired the unheard-of measures against the importation to this country of American agricultural products, and has had the audacity to condemn American meats as unwholesome, thereby greatly embittering the feelings of American farmers against Germany.

TELLER RESOLUTION.

History and Text of the Concurrent Resolution.

Whereas by the act entitled "An act to strengthen the public credit," approved March 18, 1869, it was provided and declared that the faith of the United States was thereby solemnly pledged to the payment, in coin or its equivalent, of all the interest-bearing obligations of the United States, except in cases where the law authoring the issue of such obligations had expressly provided that the same might be paid in lawful money or other currency than gold and silver; and

Whereas all the bonds of the United States authorized to be issued by the act entitled "An act to authorize the refunding of the national debt," approved July 14, 1870, by the terms of said act were declared to be redeemable in coin of the then present standard value, bearing interest payable semi-annually in such coin; and

Whereas all bonds of the United States authorized to be issued under the act entitled "An act to provide for the resumption of specie payments," approved January 14, 1875, are required to be of the description of bonds of the United States described in the said act of Congress approved July 14, 1870, entitled "An act to authorize the refunding of the national debt;" and

Whereas at the date of the passage of said act of Congress last

aforesaid, to wit, the 14th day of July, 1870, the coin of the United States of standard value of that date included silver dollars of the weight of 4121⁄2 grains each, declared by the act approved January 18, 1837, entitled "An act supplementary to the act entitled 'An act establishing a mint and regulating the coins of the United States,' " to be a legal tender of payment, according to their nominal value, for any sums whatever: Therefore,

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring therein), That all the bonds of the United States issued, or authorized to be issued, under the said acts of Congress herein before recited, are payable, principal and interest, at the option of the Government of the United States, in silver dollars, of the coinage of the United States, containing 4122 grains each of standard silver; and that to restore to its coinage such silver coins as a legal tender in payment of said bonds, principal and interest, is not in violation of the public faith, nor in derogation of the rights of the public creditor.

Offered as a concurrent resolution by Senator Teller of Colorado, Wednesday, January 5, 1898, and referred to Senate Finance Committee. Called up by Senator Vest January 20, by a yea-andnay vote-41 to 25. Debated in Senate January 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. Voted on and agreed to January 28-yeas, 47; nays, 32.

Yeas, 47-Allen, Bacon, Bate, Berry, Butler, Cannon, Carter, Chandler, Chilton, Clark, Clay, Cockrell, Daniel, Gray, Harris, Heitfeld, Jones (Ark.), Kenney, Kyle, Lindsay, McEnery, McLaurin, Mallory, Mantle, Martin, Mills, Mitchell, Money, Morgan, Murphy, Pasco, Pettigrew, Pettus, Pritchard, Rawlins, Roach, Shoup, Smith, Stewart, Teller, Tillman, Turner, Turpie, Vest, Warren, White, Wolcott.

Nays, 32-Aldrich, Allison, Baker, Burrows, Caffery, Cullom, Davis, Fairbanks, Foraker, Gallinger, Gear, Hale, Hanna, Hansbrough, Hawley, Hoar, Lodge, McBride, McMillan, Mason, Morrill, Nelson, Penrose, Perkins, Platt (Conn.), Platt (N. Y.), Quay, Sewell, Thurston, Wellington, Wetmore, Wilson.

Not voting, 10-Deboe, Elkins, Faulkner, Frye, Gorman, Jones (Nev.), Proctor, Spooner, Turley, Walthall.

In the House.-Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means January 29. Taken up, debated, voted on January 31 and rejected— yeas, 133; nays, 182. Mr. Linney, of North Carolina (Rep.), voted in the affirmative; Mr. White, of North Carolina (Rep., colored), answered "present". Two Democrats voted against the resolution, Mr. McAleer, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Elliott, of South Carolina.

Yeas, 133-Allen, Bailey, Baird, Baker (Ill.), Ball, Barlow, Bartlett, Bell, Benner (Pa.), Benton, Berry, Bland, Bodine, Botkin, Brantley, Brenner (Ohio), Brewer, Broussard, Brucker, Brundidge, Burke, Castle, Catchings, Clardy, Clark (Mo.), Clayton, Cochran (Mo.), Cooney, Cooper (Tex.), Cowherd, Cox, Cranford, Cummings, Davis, De Armond, De Graffenreid, De Vries, Dinsmore, Dockery.