The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-05-21
THE HOUSE.
Mr.. Hewitt DenOunces the Recent Letter t.
Mr. Oliver as Forgery.


Mr. Oliver a Forgery.
WASHINGTON, May 2O,-Mr Rosecrans offered
a resolution directing the judiciary committee
to inquire into the facts and the law concerning
o survey of public lands belonging to San Fran
cisco. Referred:
Mr.. Ellis, from the committee on appropria-
TONS asked leave to report a joint resolution
making an additional appropriation of 800. 900
for relief of sufferers from the overflow of the
Mississippi river and tributaries.
Mr. Connolly objected to consider action of the
resolution
Mr.. Hewitt, of New York, regretted that he
should be compelled to rise to a personal ex-
planation and said he only did after con
sultation with his colleagues on the committee
on ways and means. A letter had appeared in
the newspapers, addressed to the chairman of
the committee on ways and means, signed by
Henry w. Oliver jr., in relation to the tariff
bill introduced by him. He was informed by
Mr. Morrison that the letter was given to the
press before it was delivered to him. and yester-
day appeared in all the papers. The letter was
addressed to MIR. Oliver and signed by him Mr.
Hewitt). The latter letter a fabrication;
he was totally ignorant of its authorship till this
morning. In his mail he found the following
letter from Pittsburg.
Dear Sr-Under guise of letter from you to Hen
ry W. Oliver; jr., publish in the Sunday Globe TO-
divers letter to Morrison: 1t is considered COM
plete take off on Oliver You can use your pleasure
'''''' '''''1' J. W BREEN, Editor Globe.
"Do you indorse the letter." inquired a mem
ber
business" said Mr.. Hewitt, ''to have enabled me
to make % reply. 1t may be all true or all false
l am not in the habit of prying into other peo-
ple's BUSINESS but Mr.. Oliver has been guilty of
the indiscretion of prying into mine Continu-
ing. Mr.. Hewitt said it was almost incredible to
him that any man as familiar with legislation as
Mr.. Oliver ought to be, could have written the
letter which, as appeared, he had done Mr..
divers first statement was that the Hewitt bill
not true. 1t reduced the duty on
wire. Mr.. Oliver was misled by
a mistake in the copy. The copyist had made a
mistake which would have acted rs an increase,
but for the fact that there was provision in
schedule c. that no duty should be higher than
fifty per cent Secondly. Mr.. Oliver said that he
(Hewitt) would double the duty on iron rods
of which he is the largest manufacturer in the
country. The statement that he was
the largest manufacturer was sim
ply untrue That the bill doubled the duty
was also untrue. In as far as he was affected. it
reduced the duties on articles which he manufact-
ured 1t also inferentially stated by Mr..
Oliver that he was a maker of barbed fence
wire. He had no relation to that business, there
fore the change could not have any effect what
ever upon him. In the third place, Mr. Oliver
charged that he had practically put upon the free
list steel rods. of which he was large consumer
and not a manufacturer. He was manufacturer
of steel rods. and not large consumer all he con
sumed he made. He did not think any member
would believe he would draw up bill for his
personal benefit
Mr.. O'Neill, of Pennsylvania suggested that it
would have been more in the line of courtesy if
the gentleman had written an explanatory letter
to Mr.. Oliver, because he admitted that Mr.. Oil
yer acted ON what he saw.
The Speaker announced the appointments of
BIessrs Ellis, Holman. and Ryan as cOnfereos on
the Indian appropriation bill.
The Senate amendments to the Dingley ship
ping bill were non-concurred In.
Tho House then proceeded to consideration of
the Indiana contested election case of English
VS. Peel6.
Without reaching a vote the House adjourned