Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 20, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 June 1894 — SUGAR AND BRIBERY [ARTICLE]

SUGAR AND BRIBERY

SENATE COMMITTEE FINDS LITTLE TO REPORT ON. Refusal of Newspaper Men to Reveal the Soarce of Their Information About Democratic Senators and the Sugar Trust Proves a Stumbling-Block. Suggest Wholesale Arrests. Senator Gray, Chairman of the select committee to investigate the alleged operations of the Sugar Trust in connection with the tariff legislation, submitted a partial report to the Senate of the proceedings of that committee bearing upon the refusal of the newspaper correspondents. Edwards, Shriver and Walker, to give the source of their information to the committee. The printed report of the committee consists of five printed pages, some of it being quotations from that part of the testimony where answers were refused. The committee sta'es that it overruled the objections to Judge Dittenhoeffer, Elwards’ cournel, and insisted upon an answer to the questions. These questions sought to ascertain the authority for the statement that Carlisle signified his willingness himself to prepare an amendment to the sugar schedule which he thought would be fair to the Government and yet just to his interests; who gave the information concerning the allowed interviews between officers of the sugar trust, Mr. Havemeyer, Senator Brice, and Senator Smith; who was his informant that, on the day Mr. Voorhees denied any amendments were proposed to the bill, as originally rep.r,el to the Senate, the list of 400 amendments, as prepare! by Senator Jon is, was in the bands of the brokerage firm of Moore & Schley; that the draft of the sugar tchedcle. as finally adopted as a result of a conference between Senator Gallery and representatives of the trust, meeting in one room of the Capitol Building', while the committee was in session m another. All of these questions, the committee say, Edwards, acting upon the advice of his counsel, refused to answer. Refusal Was an Illegality. Referring to the testimony of John Shriver, correspondent of " the New York Mail and Express, the committee quote from Mr. Shriver’s letter detailing what a prominent wire manufactui er was alleged to have overheard at the Arlington hotel in a talk between certain Senators and representatives of the' Sugar Trust. Mr. Shriver said that a member of Congress gave him the information, and the committee says that in response to a direct question he declined to give the name o' e.ther tho Congressman or the wire manufacturer t > whom he referred in his i.ews dispatches. In conclusion the committee says: In toe opinion of the committee ea;h of the questions put to each of said witnesses was a proper question and pertinent to the question under Inquiry beforo the committee and was necessary to make tho examination ordered by said resolution of the Senate, and that each of the said witnesses is in contempt of the Senate and merits to be dealt with for his misconduct; and that each of said witnesses, by his various refusals to answer tho questions as herein set forth, has violated tho provisions of that certain act of Congress in snch coses made and provldod. being chapter seven of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The committee quotes in full sections 102,103 and 101 of the Revised Statutes, being the act of 1857. Indictment Is Recommended. The closing words of the report are: Wherefore, tne committee request that the President of the Senate certify as to each witness his aforesaid failure to testify and his aforesaid refusal to answer, and all the facts herein, under the seal of the Senate, to the United States DLtrict Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the ond that each of said witnesses may be proceeded against In manner aud form provided by law. It will be seen that there is no reference to the case: of Mr. Harry Walker, correspondent of the New York Daily America.